Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITIONS

Plessey Company plc

Mr. Stephen Ross: I have the honour, Mr. Speaker, to present a petition from the employees of Plessey plc at Cowes in my constituency, where about 1,350 people work, and it is signed by nearly every one of them. It says:
That the undersigned object to the proposed takeover of the Plessey Company plc by the General Electric Company plc because such a takeover would result in very heavy job losses, serious harm to the research and development in which the Plessey Company plc has up to now been involved and the creation of a monopoly which would limit the choice facing major customers in the electronics and defence markets.
I should add that such a merger would be catastrophic for the economy and my constituency.

To lie upon the Table.

Nuclear Waste Disposal

Mr. Austin Mitchell: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition from the people of Humberside, which showeth
That United Kingdom Nirex Limited are looking for sites for the storage or disposal of radioactive waste. It is known that sites in Humberside are among those being considered. It is also known that the Secretary of State for the Environment is proposing to make a Special Development Order granting planning permission for related exploration

purposes. The undersigned are totally and absolutely opposed to these proposals because they believe that they could threaten public safety, that they would seriously damage the area's economic and social development prospects and that radioactive waste should be stored or disposed of at the site of origin.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will under no circumstances approve a Special Development Order allowing preliminary site exploration or associated works in connection with the storage or disposal of radioactive waste in Humberside and will take all such action within the powers of the House to prevent a national radioactive waste storage or disposal facility being established in Humberside.
The petition is signed by 1,550 signatories and it completes a series of petitions from Humberside which have been signed by over 160,000 people a tremendous voice from Humberside — asking the Minister not to agree to the special development order. Unfortunately, the Minister has betrayed those aspirations. I am afraid that we shall now pay the price in public opinion which, as a result, turns against the nuclear programme and is driven to more extreme action than signing petitions.

To lie upon the Table.

Social Security Bill

Mr. Max Madden: I beg to ask leave to present a petition signed by Mr. John R. Ellis of Park Road, Bradford 5, and 1,745 of my constituents. They are petitioning against the Government's Social Security Bill, arguing that it
will reduce the incomes of poor families, including pensioners and the unemployed.
Figures were recently produced which showed that 19,000 households in my constituency, including those of pensioners, the sick and disabled, single parents, the unemployed and low-income families will lose income, and that 2,700 households, including, in particular, pensioners will lose more than £5 a week if the Social Security Bill becomes law.
The petitioners, who include many pensioners, pray that your honourable House will oppose the Social Security Bill.
Indeed, they are demanding that the Bill be scrapped.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Protection of Military Remains Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

APPLICATION OF ACT

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 34 on page 2 and insert—
(1) This Act applies to any aircraft which has crashed (whether before or after the passing of this Act) while in military service.
(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument—

(a) designate as a vessel to which this Act applies any vessel which appears to him to have sunk or been stranded (whether before or after the passing of this Act) while in military service;
(b) designate as a controlled site any area (whether in the United Kingdom, in United Kingdom waters or in international waters) which appears to him to contain a place comprising the remains of, or of a substantial part of, an aircraft to which this Act applies or a vessel which has so sunk or been stranded;

and the power of the Secretary of State to designate a vessel as a vessel to which this Act applies shall be exercisable irrespective of whether the situation of the remains of the vessel is known.
(3) The Secretary of State shall not designate a vessel as a vessel to which this Act applies unless it appears to him—

(a) that the vessel sank or was stranded on or after 4th August 1914; and
(b) in the case of a vessel which sank or was stranded while in service with, or while being used for the purposes of, any of the armed forces of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, that remains of the vessel are in United Kingdom waters.

(4) The Secretary of State shall not designate any area as a controlled site in respect of any remains of an aircraft or vessel which has crashed, sunk or been stranded unless it appears to him—

(a) that less than two hundred years have elapsed since the crash, sinking or stranding;
(b) that the owners and occupiers of such land in the United Kingdom as is to be designated as, or as part of, that site do not object to the terms of the designating order which affect them; and
(c) where the aircraft or vessel crashed, sank or was stranded while in service with, or while being used for the purposes of, any of the armed forces of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, that the remains are in the United Kingdom or in United Kingdom waters.

(5) An area designated as a controlled site shall not extend further around any place appearing to the Secretary of State to comprise remains of an aircraft or vessel which has crashed, sunk or been stranded while in military service than appears to him appropriate for the purpose of protecting or preserving those remains or on account of the difficulty of identifying that place;

Mr. Michael Mates: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Lords amendments: No. 2, in page 2, line 37, at end insert—

(5A) For the purposes of this Act a place (whether in the United Kingdom, in United Kingdom waters or in international waters) is a protected place if—

(a) it comprises the remains of, or of a substantial part of, an aircraft or vessel to which this Act applies; and
(b) it is on or in the sea bed or is the place, or in the immediate vicinity of the place, where the remains were left by the crash, sinking or standing of that aircraft or vessel;

but no place in international waters shall be a protected place but virtue of its comprising remains of an aircraft or vessel which has crashed, sunk or been stranded while in service with, or while being used for the purposes of, any of the armed forces of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.
No 3, in line 41, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
(7) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument substitute references to a later date for the reference in subsection (3)(a) above to 4th August 1914 or for any reference to a date which is inserted by an order under this subsection; and a statutory instrument containing an order under this subsection shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
No. 4, in clause 2, page 3, line 9, leave out "is, or"
No. 5, in line 12, leave out
to which this Act applies
and insert
which has crashed, sunk or been stranded while in military service
No. 7, leave out lines 32 to 36.
No. 8, in line 42, leave out "is, or"
No. 9, in page 4, line 5, leave out
(whether or not the place is, or
and insert
or in a place which
No. 10, in line 10, leave out
to which this Act applies
and insert
which has crashed, sunk or been stranded while in military service.
No. 11, in line 12, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
(4)In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section, it shall be a defence for that person to show that what he did or, as the case may be, what he caused or permitted to be done was done under and in accordance with a licence under section 4 below.
No. 12, in page 4, line 19, leave out "is not, and".
No. 13, in page 4, line 24, leave out from "place" to end of line 27.
No. 15, in line 38, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
(8) References in this section to any remains which are comprised in a protected place or to any remains which are comprised in a place which is part of a controlled site include references to remains other than those by virtue of which that place is a protected place or, as the case may be, to remains other than those in respect of which that site was or could have been designated.
No. 16, in clause 4, page 5, line 43, leave out, "under section 1(4) above" and insert "designating a controlled site"
No. 17, in page 6, line 5, leave out
of an aircraft or vessel to which this Act applies
and insert
to which the licence relates
No. 18, in line 11, leave out "under section 1(4) above" and insert "designating a controlled site"
No. 19, in line 23, leave out
to which this Act applies
No. 21, in clause 9, page 8, line 33, after "a" insert "hovercraft,"
No. 22, in line 37, leave out from "site"" to end of line 38 and insert


means any area which is designated as such a site under section 1 above;
No. 23, in page 9, line 3, at end insert—
"military service" shall be construed in accordance with subsection (1A) below;
No. 24, in line,7, leave out "section 1(2)" and insert "section 1(5A)"
No. 25, in line 12, after "voyage" insert
(including in the case of a vessel, any aircraft which were on board)
No. 26, in line 21, at end insert—
(1A) For the purposes of this Act an aircraft or vessel shall he regarded as having been in military service at a particular time if at that time it was—

(a) in service with, or being used for the purposes of, any of the armed forces of the United Kingdom or any other country or territory; or
(b) in the case of any aircraft, being taken from one place to another for delivery into service with any of the armed forces of the United Kingdom.

(1B) Where a place comprising the remains of, or of a substantial part of, an aircraft or vessel which has crashed, sunk or been stranded while in military service is situated only partly in United Kingdom waters, that place shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as if the part which is situated in United Kingdom waters and the part which is situated in the United Kingdom: or in international waters were separate places each of which comprised the remains of a substantial part of the aircraft or vessel.
No. 27, in line 22, leave our subsection (2).

Mr. Mates: A few months ago the Bill completed all its stages, without amendment, in this House and had the warm support of all those hon. Members present. It has returned from the other place with what some may think is a formidable list of amendments. They are all Government amendments.
Amendment No. 1 was itself amended in the other place. Lord Grimond proposed the removal of a subsection which restricted the Secretary of State's powers relating to the designation of controlled sites. He felt that Secretaries of State could be trusted not to go completely round the bend, and it appears that the Government had some sympathy with that view. It was agreed that, in the interests of brevity, that subsection could be omitted.
I welcome these amendments, and I shall leave it to my hon. Friend the Minister to say a brief word about the Government amendments. Their Lordships accepted the amendments, after consultation, without reservation, and I hope that the House will do the same.
I am grateful to all those in both Houses who have taken an interest in this small but necessary Bill. I should particularly like to thank my noble Friend Lord Sandford for bringing forward this measure in the other place. On Report he paid tribute to the Government for the concern that they had shown for the special problems of those with a legitimate interest in the remains of military aircraft and vessels. I should like to do the same. I am delighted that these problems have been recognised and satisfactorily answered. I can, therefore, warmly commend their Lordships' amendments to the House.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) and Lord Sandford on the progress that they have made and on bringing the Bill to the House in a condition which they believe to be a considerable improvement as a result of the amendments before us.
The range and complexity of their Lordships' amendments are an indication of what a difficult area of law it is. It is vital that there should be clarity, because

there may be some quite powerful commercial vested interests in military remains. As we know, there is much souvenir and treasure hunting among the remains of vessels, and the same might apply to aircraft. No doubt that was one of the factors that the Government had in mind in seeking to make the legislation as precise as possible.
In general, the House has a duty to ensure that legislation is not ambigious. I say that with a smile, because, after long experience, I know just how difficult it is to achieve that. If someone has to go to court to pursue what he believes to be his rights, and has to find out whether they really are his rights, it must represent a failure on our part. We have then failed to make the legislation so clear that no learned judge needs to put his mind to interpreting it.
As I am anxious that we should get the legislation right, as the Bill is important and, as the hon. Member for Hampshire, East has said, valuable — we will all be happy when, in a short time from now, it completes its progress through Parliament—I want to ask either the Minister or the hon. Gentleman some questions about the amendments.
Lords amendment No. 1 seeks to omit the word "vessel" from subsection (1). It has the effect of confining the application of that subsection to an aircraft. What puzzles me is that subsection (2)(b) of the amendment applies to
an aircraft to which this Act applies or a vessel which has so sunk or been stranded".
I am sure that there is a good explanation. Although I am not the most astute reader of legal language, I am not the dimmest either. If the legislation is not clear to me, it will not be clear to many of our citizens, and so may cause a lot of trouble.
Is there not an inconsistency between subsections (1) and (2)? Subsection (2) gives powers to the Secretary of State to make an order within the area covered by that subsection, but subsection (1) says that the area covered involves only aircraft, not vessels. Thus, subsection (2) says that the Secretary of State can make an order about a vessel which is now, as a result of subsection (1), outside the ambit of this part of the Bill.
I am sorry if what I am saying sounds complicated and jargonish, but the whole Bill is like that. Moreover, why is subsection (4)(a) confined to a "crash, sinking or stranding" that occurred less than 200 years ago? That seems to be an arbitrary cut-off point and I wonder why it was chosen. There were crashes, sinkings and strandings more than 200 years ago. For example, if the Bill had been enacted a couple of years ago, the Mary Rose might not have been protected. What would the justification have been? There may be other Mary Roses. Bits of Spanish galleons that sailed in the armada are still littered round St. George's channel and round the coast of south-west Wales. Does that mean that they are not protected? If so, why?
I have read amendment No. 2 four times side by side with the original text. I cannot for the life of me see what change has been made or what the purport of it is. I cannot understand its effect. It would be helpful to the House and to the people who will be affected by the legislation if the Under-Secretary of State would tell us what has been changed.
Under clause 2(3), in certain circumstances


An excavation or diving or salvage operation prohibited by this subsection—
(a) if it is carried out"—
on
any remains of an aircraft or vessel which are comprised in a place
which is wholly or partly a controlled site. I have, to some extent, translated the text. Amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 42, is to leave out "is, or". Under the original text, the provision applies to remains in an area that is wholly or partly controlled, but, under the amendment, it applies only to remains in an area that is partly controlled. That puzzles me no end. If the site is controlled, what does it matter whether it is wholly or partly controlled? Surely we want the provision to apply equally in both cases.
In respect of amendment No. 111 shall repeat the point that I put on amendment No. 2. I do not believe that the proposed wording as a different import from the original wording. It is only a little longer and more involved. The House should be given an explanation.
Finally—we do not want to spend more time than is necessary on this—I shall refer to amendment No. 26. Proposed subsection 9(1B) lays down the criteria against which it is decided whether
an aircraft or vessel shall be regarded as having been in military service
at a particular time. That definition is necessary because many of the Bill's provisions hinge on whether an aircraft or vessel was in military service at a particular time. This is puzzling. Under proposed paragraph (a) an aircraft or vessel is defined as being in military service if it is in service with
the armed forces of the United Kingdom or any other country".
That is simple and obvious. Under proposed paragraph (b) an aircraft that is not in service with any of the armed services but is in transit on the way to being put into service with the armed forces of this or any other country shall be deemed to be in military service. That, too, seems to be sensible. Why does that provision not apply equally to a vessel? It applies only to an aircraft. The first three lines of the proposed new subsection (1A) refer to "an aircraft or vessel". Why, then, does it not cover proposed paragraph (b)? For example, if an aircraft which had been on its way to service in the Falklands campaign had, unhappily, crashed, its remains would be covered by the Bill. If a ship on its way to service in the Falklands had, unhappily, sunk, its remains would not be covered by the Bill. What is the difference in principle? If the principle that an instrument of war in tranist to a place where it will be used in military operations is deemed to be in military service, why does it not apply to all instruments of war—ships as well as aircraft?
I understand from the hon. Member for Hampshire, East that the Government are responsible for the amendments. I shall not, therefore, burden the hon. Gentleman with the task of replying to my detailed questions. I shall be grateful to the Under-Secretary of State if he will give some guidance in these matters. Indeed, it is necessary that he should do so.

Mr. Denzil Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) has, as usual, with his sharp eye for these matters picked out a number

of difficult parts in the Bill. I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), but the Bill seems to be a Government Bill.

Mr. Mates: indicated dissent.

Mr. Davies: I would not call it a hybrid Bill because it is not "hybrid" in the parliamentary sense. The Bill is somewhere between a private Member's Bill and a Government Bill. However, that is not an important point.
In the main, we welcome the Bill. We understand the sensitivity of these matters and the difficulty involved, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar has shown, in drafting once one gets down to trying to provide in legislative form the type of protection that we all wish to see.
I think it is fair to say that the Bill went through its earlier stages quickly. I am not blaming anyone for that. I do not know why it happened. There was concern in some circles about the Bill in its original form. There is always a conflict between the desire and necessity to protect military remains of this kind and the commercial interests involved in legitimate work. I would not pretend to be an expert on the Bill, but it seems to me, having looked at it quickly late last night, that to some extent these conflicts have been resolved.
My concern in respect of the amendments is with jurisdiction. This perhaps goes to the heart of the Bill. This concern was expressed by various organisations, although I do not argue their case. Amendment No. 1 which is an amendment to clause 1, states in subsection (2)(b) that the Secretary of State may make a statutory instrument designating an area as a controlled site
(whether in the United Kingdom, in United Kingdom waters or in international waters)
Reading that without looking at the background I thought what a powerful Secretary of State we have who can designate anything he likes in international waters. That seems to be a contradiction because, by definition, we have no power to designate anything in international waters. However, no doubt Acts of Parliament can do almost anything. As Professor Jennings has told us they can deem a man to be a woman or a woman to be a man. Therefore, I suppose it is possible to deem that international waters shall be covered by the Bill.
10 am
The amendment is in respect of clause 1, but, as I understand it, we then have to refer to clause 3 because if an area in international waters is designated as a controlled site, and presumably we are talking about an aircraft or a ship, the Secretary of State has to do something in respect of that. Presumably the intention of the Bill is to protect that piece of hardware in international waters whether it is a ship or an aircraft. However, the writ of the Secretary of State does not run to international waters, it runs only to Britain. And that is where we have a problem. Clause 3 "Extraterritorial jurisdiction" seems to be the heart of the Bill. Clause 3 talks about offences where there is a contravention of subsection (2). It says
a person shall be guilty of an offence".
That is a serious matter. Parliament is not just legislating about protection, but laying down criminal offences. No doubt people could go to prison or be heavily fined. I have not seen what the actual penalties might be, but that does not matter. The penalties apply
if the acts or omissions which constitute the offence are committed in the United Kingdom, in United Kingdom waters".


The writ of the Secretary of State does run to the United Kingdom and to United Kingdom waters. It goes on:
or on board a British-controlled ship".
Therefore, the wide intention of the first part is confined because the Secretary of State does not have any powers in international waters.

Mr. Mikardo: Can my hon. Friend tell us—I am not too clear about this—whether the provision of the Bill would be in conflict with the law of the sea treaty?

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend asks an interesting and difficult question. Of course, we know that there has been a treaty, but I do not think that the Government ratified that treaty. I think that, rather shamefully, the United Kingdom Government followed the United States and refused to ratify the new law of the sea treaty, which took about 10 years of intense work to negotiate. Whether this is in conflict with the general body of the law of the sea I would not know. I suppose, again, we can do whatever we want to do in an Act of Parliament.
The jurisdiction for the offence is confined under clause 3(1)(a) to acts committed in United Kingdom waters. However, that is not the point I am making. We now have to look at international waters. We are talking about whether the offences are committed on board a "British-controlled ship", which is presumably defined somewhere, in international waters. Therefore, any British-controlled ship in international waters which transgresses or contravenes the provisions of the Bill is subject to a fine.
Clause 3(1)(b) states:
in a case where those acts or omissions are committed in international waters but not on hoard a British-controlled ship".
The offence is then confined even more because the person who commits it has to be
a British citizen, a British Dependent Territories citizen or a British Overseas citizen".
The law of nationality was never my strong point and I would not wish to try to go down that road. These may be precedents for establishing offences that British dependent territories citizens or British overseas citizens can be convicted for and a law passed in the House. There are new citizenship rights, if they can be called rights. It seems to me that they are derogations of rights.

Mr. Mates: They are five years old.

Mr. Davies: Yes, they are five years old, but I merely, ask whether there is a precedent for making those people guilty when they are not here. Perhaps our legislation does cover people who are British overseas citizens.

Mr. Mikardo: Is there not also another point? Would it not be possible for a British citizen to contravene the provisions of the Bill by employing a Frenchman or American to do what it would be illegal for him to do himself?

Mr. Davies: That is a good point. The Bill says only if the offence is committed
on board a British-controlled ship".
The person committing the offence may be too clever to do it from a British-controlled ship so it may be on a French-controlled ship. It also says that the act must be committed by a "British citizen". Maybe the British citizen could be said to be an acccessory before the fact. I do not know whether one can be an acessory to an offence which is not an offence, if that is not a roundabout way of saying it. I shall come back to that point later.
That is taken a little further by amendment No. 2. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar referred to that. I find it slightly difficult. Amendment No. 2 states:
but no place in international waters shall be a protected place by virtue of its comprising remains of an aircraft or vessel which has crashed, sunk or been stranded while in service with, or while being used for the purposes of, any of the armed forces of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.
Obviously, we are not protecting other countries' ships or aircraft.
What protection is there? It seems that British companies—I use the phrase generally because there are closer definitions—will be confined or prevented from carrying out these acts on British aircraft or ships or aircraft or ships that have been in the military service of the United Kingdom in international waters. I am not saying that that is wrong because we agree with the Bill. However, it seems that foreign companies are not so confined. I wonder whether that was the intention of the Bill. It is probably the effect of the Bill because I do not know how that can be stopped. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar mentioned the law of the sea treaty. He is absolutely right. The only way in which these things can be dealt with adequately is by international convention or treaty, through the numerous law of the sea agreements that have come down over the years. It is not the case of arguing for commercial interests. It seems strange, however, that British companies will be prevented, apparently, from making money out of these remains while other companies—French, American or Japanese, for example—can go ahead and disturb the remains. Is that the intention of the Bill? Are the Government concerned about that? Are the Government trying to do something in collaboration with other countries so that the Bill does not remain British in its scope, limited, and ineffective to some extent in its jurisdiction? What are the Government's views on these matters?
It seems that the central problem has not been resolved. We have been told that certain assurance have been given. I have read the report of Lord Sandford's speech in another place and he seemed confident that assurancess were coming from left, right and centre. It seems that people did not get as far as reading Lord Trethgarne's reply in full. The assurances which have been given seem not to cover the possible activities of non-British companies and perhaps they cannot. I shall not continue to advance the argument as it is fairly straightforward and clear. I shall be grateful if the Minister addresses himself to it.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: I welcome the Bill, but wish to make a few brief observations and to ask some questions. One of my most poignant childhood memories is when, during the war, an RAF Lancaster crashed on a hillside near to where I was. I remember the agony and concern over the aircrew who were unfortunately killed and who had to be removed from the wrecked aircraft. I remember the Lancaster being guarded by troops.
I fear that there is a flaw in the nationality provisions as set out in the Bill. There is an omission which I accept did not apply when the Bill started its passage through Parliament. However, since the recent Order in Council on Hong Kong, one might have expected the point to be covered. I refer to the concept of British nationals overseas, who are not included, as I understand it, in clause 3. As recently as yesterday evening the Outer Space


Bill was before the House, a measure which contains similar provisions covering citizenship and nationality. There is a reference in the Outer Space Bill to British nationals overseas. I refer to clause 2(2)(a).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Perhaps I am not following the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) with sufficient care, but I would be grateful if he would tell me to which of the Lord's amendments he is referring.

Mr. Dubs: I fear that you have caught me out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in trespassing on your tolerance. There is no Lord's amendment to the issue that I am raising. I have taken it up because my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) mentioned it. The omission of British nationals overseas is a minor matter but a real one.
I move on swiftly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the amendments. I shall refer particularly to Lords amendment No. 1, and develop briefly the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) on time limits. As I understand it, the concept of the 200-year period applied, although in a different form, in the original version of the Bill as it appeared in another place. The reference to 4 August, 1914 has been added and it is that which causes me to be puzzled. I am puzzled also about the 200-year period. We are all aware of the tragic war that began on 4 August 1914, but it is not clear to me why that date, and that date alone, should enable some of the Bill's provisions to be brought into being. I have studied the amendments and I cannot understand the thinking behind that date and the 200-year period. For example clause 1(3)(a) states:
unless it appears to the him" — that is the Secretary of State— "that the vessel sank or was stranded on or after 4th August 1914".
The House will be aware that there are vessels such as the Mary Rose, and there may be many in that category. It is difficult to understand why the date 4 August 1914 has been selected. It seems that no such time limit should have been necessary, given the spirit of the Bill, and that respect for the remains of people should apply to dates before 1914.
10.15 am
I am concerned also about the change in the definition of military service. The original version of the Bill referred, in clause (1)(1)(b) to
while in the service of the Ministry of Defence of or any other authority which at the time exercised functions in relation to anyof the naval, military, or air forces of Her Majesty".
That passage has been dropped, and we now have the expression "while in military service". By changing the terminology are we not excluding certain aircraft or vessels which would otherwise have been covered by the Bill? I would think that the definition "military service" is more limited than
while in the service of the Ministry of Defence or of any other authority".
I have no doubt that the Minister will advance the argument that if a civilian aircraft were to be used to take soldiers from one part of the United Kingdom to another, it would be covered by the term "while in military service", but I wonder whether "Ministry of Defence" does not go wider than "military service". Perhaps the Minister will elaborate on that.
Thirdly, there is the phrase
armed forces … outside the United Kingdom",
which appears in Lords amendment (1)(4)(c). That is a reference to the
armed forces of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom".
I am not sure about the intention behind that. Will there be definitional difficulties in referring to other armed forces? I understand that if an aircraft carrying American soldiers who were based in the United Kingdom were to crash, the intention would be for the Bill to cover such an event. Perhaps the reference to other armed forces goes wider than that. If that is the intention, it would be helpful for the Minister to provide clarification.
I apologised earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for referring to something which was not covered directly by the amendments. I took up the matter because I was genuinely puzzled and because there will be no further opportunity to question the Government on these matters after the consideration of the Lords amendments has been completed. I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having gone beyond the bounds of the amendments.

Mr. Chris Smith: I do not wish to detain the House for long as I wish the Bill to take its proper place on the statute book within a reasonably short period. However, there is. one matter which concerns me about Lords amendment No. 1, which relates to the extent of the controlled site designated by the Secretary of State. We have before us two alternatives, one of which is contained in the Bill. Clause 1(4) says that the Secretary of State
may by order made by statutory instrument designate as a controlled site so much of that area as he considers it appropriate so to designate for the purpose of protecting or preserving any remains comprised in that place.
That wording seems to be clear and unambiguous, and seems to cover all possible parts of territories which the Secretary of State might wish, for the purposes of the Bill, to designate as a controlled site. However, the other place has somewhat expanded on that definition, and by subsection (5) of amendment No. 1 appears to wish to substitute for that wording a rather more complicated wording which, on my initial reading, does not add very much to the possibilities open to the Secretary of State. It also includes the strange phrase:
or on account of the difficulty of identifying that place".
My concern can perhaps be exemplified by one particular crashed aircraft of which I know. As some hon. Members may know, I spend considerable amounts of the little free time that I have walking the hills and mountains of Scotland, and an extremely pleasant and healthy exercise it is. There is one particularly beautiful part of Scotland, in Torridon, where a mountain called Beinn Eighe has, at the back of it a coire called Coire Mhic Fhearchair, one of the most spectacular spots in the mountains. It is contained on three sides by mountains with a lochan at the foot of it and at the back three triple buttresses of about 1,000 ft., in height, which provide an extremely popular rock climbing ground.
Back in the 1950s, sadly, an RAF aircraft flew, by mistake, into the coire and before it was able to rise sufficiently to clear the summit of the mountain it crashed near the top of the triple buttresses. The wreckage spread — tragically, because everyone involved was killed — right the way down the cliff face and into the floor of the


coire. In the context of the Bill, the problem is that the wreckage is spread over a considerable area. My concern is over the definition of the controlled area.

Mr. Mates: I think that I recall this case. Were not all the bodies recovered, which would mean that the Bill would not apply?

Mr. Smith: I think that most of the bodies were recovered, hut I am not certain whether the hon. Gentleman is correct. Even if he were, my point would none the less apply on a general basis, because there are other similar examples.
The terms of the Bill are very stringent. No one can move or tamper with any of the parts of a crashed aircraft or wrecked ship. That might place restrictions on people, for example, walking in the mountains. I am concerned that the controlled area should be no greater than what would be required to effect the purposes of the Bill.
The wording of the Lords amendment seems to offer rather greater scope than the wording of the Bill and might lead to unnecessarily large areas being designated as a controlled site and to particular restrictions being put on that which not necessarily be needed to pursue and promuwitylgate the purposes of the Bill. They might then be to the detriment of some of our citizens. I shall be glad to hear from the Minister some of the thinking that might be leading the Government to accept the new wording rather than the wording of the Bill.

Mr. John Prescott: The proceedings surrounding the Bill have been deplorable. I know that it is the practice for Departments to seek the assistance of hon. Members to promote private Bills, and that practice has been followed by both sides of the House. I am not complaining, because the process can be of advantage to the House. However, I have been watching the progress of the Bill with care for some time. I am one of the few hon. Members who dive on wrecks, and I have some knowledge of the problems that are likely to be brought about by the Bill.
The Bill started with some controversial principles. Some are embodied in the amendment — for example, how we extend British jurisdiction into international waters. I notice that this provision will apply only to British ships and British personnel on British vessels in international waters. However, I am told by international authorities that it is extremely difficult to define this problem, and that it discriminates between British and foreign companies involved in salvage operations. Perhaps we shall hear from the Minister about this.
The other place made considerable changes, and has made the Bill better, but it has transformed a private Bill into a Government Bill, because all the amendments are Government amendments. The substance of the change, particularly that made by amendment No. 1, is considerable. I intervene now, but I hope to catch your eye at a later stage, Mr. Deputy Speaker, after the Minister has spoken. We are asking questions when it might be better for us to hear first what the Minister has to say on the changes that have been made.
The Bill came from the other place only two or three days ago, and I have been watching for it to appear on the Order Paper. Unfortunately, as this is a private Bill, it does not come in our normal notice of business. Therefore, I did not appreciate that it was on the Order paper this morning,

due to something that happened last night. Therefore, we are expected to consider many amendments, involving important principles, at short notice.
Amendment No. 1 says that a statutory instrument will be laid before the House. That is an improvement. The original provisions of the Bill, which was rushed through its stages here, meant that the Department had total powers of designation for just about any vessel or aircraft. At least the statutory instrument, which seems to be a major change, now applies to aircraft. The Government must bring forward a statutory instrument designating a particular aircraft or vessel. If that is the case, it is to be welcomed. I hope that the Minister will confirm that when he gives the Government's view.
What will be the process of designation of a controlled site? Will it be by statutory instrument? The rather global approach that the Department adopted before meant that any area could he so designated, provided it fitted in with the date restriction of after 1914 and the 200-year qualification. Every hon. Member would want to do everything possible to protect the burial remains of military vessels. Nobody wants to interfere with that important priciple. However, anybody who dives knows that one finds a ship not in its complete state, but in bits and pieces buried below or resting on top of the sea bed. Not often does one find a whole vessel. I recall diving on the Mary Rose in the early 1970s. I had to put my hands through the mud to find the timber.
The Bill, as originally drafted, meant that even to move or tamper with any vessel became an offence. Unless one had done a great deal of research, one would not k now whether a vessel was used for military or commercial purposes. The situation is quite different from the vessels that were sunk in Scapa Flow. Ironically enough, though, under the Bill one would still be able to dive and do salvage work on the Scapa Flow vessels, because I understand that everybody escaped from them and no bodies are associated with them. Therefore, a certain amount of flexibility is associated with salvage operations.
10.30 am
When those who are associated with the industry first became aware of the Bill, their first reaction was to oppose it. In reality, the Bill came before the House without the industry having been consulted about it. The Department decided that something must be done. However, it did not consult anybody; it simply produced a Bill and asked the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) to introduce it because it was a worthy cause. I understand why he would want to co-operate with that particular cause. Therefore, he must have been surprised by the vehemence of the reaction to the Bill. The number of amendments that this House has been asked by the other place to consider — amendments on very important issues — should make us very cagey about listening to Government Departments that want Bills containing perhaps only a few sentences to be introduced by Back-Bench Members.
The reason for the introduction of the Bill was to allow the Department to deal with the problems created by people who want to dive on vessels and carry out salvage work. A case in my constituency is particularly relevant to this amendment. Shell were found on a vessel. As a commercial operation, people wanted to dive on this vessel, which was sunk in 1914. There has been one heck


of a hassle with the Department as to whether, these shells having been found, they can be used to commercial advantage.
The Bill would prevent that kind of hassle. I had to intervene on behalf of certain of my constituents who had found these empty shell cases and wanted to use them, because they had found a profitable market for them. The Government took the shells into safe keeping, but somebody burgled them, using 4-tonne lorries. Nobody has been able to find out where the shells went, after having been in the safe custody of the Government. After all the fuss that I had with the Department, the purpose of the Bill was to try to solve all those problems and to designate any area that it was thought should not be dived on or tampered with.
Many major matters are covered by the Bill, but it is an unsatisfactory way of dealing with them. In the other place the industry battled intensively against the Bill. As a result, we are considering these amendments. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a clear indication of the Government's attitude towards them. If the Minister would do that, we could consider his reply and make points upon it later in the debate.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): I am grateful for the Opposition's contributions and I shall deal with the points that have been made. First, however, I ought to underline the fact that the purpose of the Bill is to protect military remains—that is, aircraft which have crashed or vessels which have been sunk with human remains on board. The purpose of the Bill is to treat them as war graves. This is a serious and important subject. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) on introducing the Bill, looking after its passage through the House of Commons and speaking to it this morning. It is an important and serious Bill and I shall seek to answer all the Oppositions contributions, which I think I have interpreted correctly as points of detail rather than as objections to the Bill.
I intend to comment briefly on the Lords amendments and with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall deal briefly with the other Lords amendments that are grouped for debate later, because, already, the debate has ranged widely. All but one of the 28 amendments were put forward by the Government. No fewer than 22 of the 28 amendments relate to a change to the designation of a regime for vessels, as opposed to designating vessels as a class—those that were in military service but were sunk and that are believed to contain human remains. A major change in the procedure was introduced in the other place, and the Government accepted it as a sensible response to some of the points that have been referred to this morning by hon. Members. Military vessels will no longer be protected as a class. They will need to be individually designated by an order made by statutory instrument. The reason for this is simply because of the difficulty of defining a class of military vessels. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), referring to diving interests, in particular sub-aqua interests, put his finger on the problem: that if one is interested in diving to observe but not to interfere with a vessel, how does a diver

or the Ministry of Defence know for certain whether a particular vessel was being used for military or civilian purposes?
In wartime, many merchant vessels are commandeered and used for military purposes. Therefore, the dividing line between the civilian and military use of vessels is not so clear as it is in the case of aircraft. It is much easier and simpler to identify a crashed aircraft as having been fulfilling a military purpose and role as opposed to a civilian role.
Vessels can now be so designated, even where their exact location is not known. I shall deal later with that point when answering the question that has been raised in relation to controlled sites. The change was made to reduce the uncertainties for divers about whether particular vessels were covered by the Bill, which I am sure both sides of the House hope will soon become an Act.
Amendment No. 5 redefines the offence involved in the protection of military vessels and aircraft. The prosecution now has to show tht the person believed or had grounds for suspecting that the vessel was in military service. The effect of amendment No. 5 is slightly to change the onus of proof and it is an intelligent and sensible response to the representations. It is designed to draw a clearer distinction between the intention to commit an offence and an offence that might be committed unwittingly and without particular intent or purpose.
Amendment No. 6 removes the offence of boarding and defines that of entering. The purpose of the amendment is to introduce an offence that is not so strong as boarding. This amendment was introduced partly in response to representations from diving interests. The act of entering and interfering with parts of a vessel is covered now by the Bill, as a result of amendment No. 6.
Amendment No. 14 provides that no offence will be committed by those exercising statutory powers. I am sure that that amendment will commend itself to the House. Amendment No. 20 relates to the powers of boarding by authorised officers and makes it clear that the Secretary of State and authorised officers can authorise persons not only individually but also by description—for example, naval officers. Amendment No. 28 enables the provisions to be extended to the Channel Islands by Order in Council.
I am grateful for the tribute that was paid by Lord Sandford in another place to the Government's efforts to protect the interests of British salvage companies and others who may be affected by the Bill. We have agreed to issue licences to reputable British salvage companies to enable them to salvage protected vessels in international waters, provided that they adhere to a code of practice designed to minimise disturbance to any human remains.

Mr. Prescott: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are all the amendments being moved in one block?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are following the amendments listed on Mr. Speaker's provisional selection list. The Minister made a passing reference to an amendment that is not in the group that we are discussing, but as I thought that it might be helpful to the House I did not comment. The other amendments will be dealt with as we reach them in the proper order.

Mr. Prescott: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Minister referred to reputable salvage operators. How will he judge what is reputable? Quite frankly, many


of them are little more than pirates. What criteria will the Minister use? Will they be non-members of certain associations or bodies?

Mr. Freeman: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, 1 shall deal with that matter later. I confirm that I am addressing the first group of amendments, but I thought that it might help the House if I touched briefly upon the purpose of other amendments.
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) expressed concern that the interests of fishermen should be safeguarded. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement wrote to him saying that we would issue a general licence for fishermen that would protect them from prosecution under the Bill if they exercised reasonable care. Preliminary discussions have been held with fishing organisations on the content of the licence, and we believe that they are satisfied.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) expressed concern about sports divers. Indeed, other hon. Members have received letters from their constituents on that matter. The Government's amendments have been welcomed by sub-aqua associations, and I hope that they are now reassured that the Bill will not restrict the activities of divers who respect the sanctity of war graves.
The Government have been heartened by the expressed view of all concerned that, despite the problems, the Bill is worthy. I hope that, in due course, the House will approve the Lords amendments, all of which the Government fully support.
The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), in welcoming the clarity that the Lords amendments bring to the Bill, raised a number of points. His first related to what he believed to be inconsistencies in amendment No. 1. The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) also make that point. He courteously informed me that he would have to leave the debate, but I understand that he is returning later.
10.45 am
Amendment No. 1 is the key amendment and its purpose is to change the policy from designating a class of vessels to designating specific vessels. The Bill still retains a provision to designate classes of military aircraft. this group of amendments enshrine our change of policy from blanket protection to a procedure that involves a great deal more work. However, I hope that that means a great deal more clarity, especially for such interests as divers. Vessels will be designated by statutory instrument, and I will explain the procedure later.
The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar also asked about the 200-year provision, which is not covered by the Lords amendments. He specifically asked about the Mary Rose, as did the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. Certainly the Mary Rose foundered and sank more than 200 years ago, but she was protected by the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973, which protects vessels of historic or archaeological interest. Therefore, there is sufficent protection for any vessel that sank prior to 1914. The Bill deals with those involved in the great war, the second world war and subsequent conflicts where the classifications historic or archaeological would not be appropriate.

Mr. Prescott: Why include a date of 1914—why not leave it open and bring in a statutory instrument, as the Minister explained, to deal with specific military vessels? The state of the ship is not really relevant.

Mr. Freeman: We are seeking to respond to the reasonable request of the diving fraternity and others who want clarity of purpose. The designation procedure will involve considerable effort. For the sake of clarity, good order and procedure, we intend to start from August 1914 and work to the present day. We are satisfied that existing legislation is sufficient to deal with vessels that sank earlier than that—even if there are human remains—because they would be regarded as of historical or archaeological interest.
The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar asked me the purpose of a number of amendments. Amendment No. 2 simply relocates, with minor drafting changes, clause 1(2). That technical change is required if dealing with the amendments as a whole. Amendment No. 8 removes provisions rendered unnecessary by amendment No. 1, which changes policy from a class to a designation regime.
Amendment No. 11 puts beyond all possible doubt that where it is claimed that an act was done in accordance with a licence, the onus is on the defence to prove that it was. Amendment No. 26 inserts a definition of military service that is already used elsewhere in the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman asked why vessels being delivered to the Royal Navy were not covered by the Bill. We are not aware of any such vessel that was sunk or severely damaged during military conflict, so there was no reason to include them in the Bill.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) generally welcomed the Bill, but he posed a number of questions to which he wants satisfactory answers. The kernel of the hon. Gentleman's points concerned jurisdiction. He asked why we are considering designating particular vessels or controlled sites in international waters, if we have no jurisdiction over foreign companies or individuals. He asked whether we were not disadvantaging our nationals and British salvage companies. That is a perfectly fair point, but before I respond to it, I confirm that there are specific procedures regarding vessels. The intention is to designate a few controlled sites. They could be mainly or, even exclusively, in territorial waters, and would be specifically designated by geographical co-ordinates. Within them no diving would be permitted. That would be where there was an important national war grave. Designated vessels could be either in territorial waters or international waters.
We are responding to representations made by salvage companies which are worried that if we prevent them from entering into controlled, sensible, salvage operations in international waters, they will be disadvantaged by companies from other countries. We have responded that we shall permit them to carry out controlled salvage on most designated vessels by issuing a licence to reputable companies. I shall deal with the definition of reputable in a moment. However, there will be a few vessels where we would not like any salvage to occur and they will form a restricted class. I hope that that assurance will be satisfactory to the salvage interests.
We shall not seek to restrict a designated vessel some time after the designation of that vessel. In other words, when we designate the vessels by statutory instrument we shall not subsequently, after the salvage company has put


great effort, trouble and money into preparing the salvage operations, tell that company that the vessel falls within the exclusion subcategory of designated vessels. I hope that that assurance will satisfy the hon. Gentleman. I think that it has satisfied salvage operators thus far.

Mr. Prescott: In the case of the Edinburgh the Government had a great of interest in salvaging the gold and presumably, as seamen were on it, it could be designated as a burial site. Under these regulations, would the Government designate it as a war grave, which presumably would be legitimate, and then allow a salvage operator to salvage the gold so that they could get their greedy hands on it, getting over the principles of interfering with a burial site?

Mr. Freeman: That raises a specific question and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer it in writing in due course. It depends on whether we would intend, under the provisions of the Bill, specifically to designate a particular vessel. He is asking questions about a specific controlled site or vessel, and I hope he will permit me to answer subsequently.

Mr. Mates: Ministers cannot give specific answers, but I remember the case, as I followed it closely. Edinburgh was a designated war grave. There were remains of the crew on board and before the Government gave permission for the salvage operation to take place, the most detailed stringent arrangements were made about not disturbing those remains. A long period of negotiations between the salvage company and the Government took place before permission was granted. I have no doubt that if the same position arises any future Government will take the same care to ensure that the remains are not disturbed.

Mr. Prescott: rose—

Mr. Freeman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me make a little progress and then I shall be happy to give way again.

Mr. Prescott: I understand that the Minister may not know all the details of the case. That is normal and I make no criticism of it. But we are dealing with a fundamental point. The Government may designate sites in this legislation, whether or not it is a private Member's Bill, and that then becomes law. The Government will have to decide which areas they wish to designate as burial sites, for which a statutory instrument may be tabled and discussed in the House. Therefore, the Government's view is relevant. Are we to assume from the evidence that it is possible that the Government will judge that an area deemed a burial site, for example the Edinburgh, would be allowed for salvage operations so long as it is done carefully, the bodies are not disturbed and the gold is salvaged? Is it possible that a deemed burial site can still be a site for salvage operations?

Mr. Freeman: The intention is to permit reasonable, sensible, salvage operations and to issue licences to specific named salvage companies to salvage on—

Mr. Prescott: Burial sites?

Mr. Freeman: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to complete my sentence, he will have an answer. We shall judge salvage companies to be reputable according to their past performance, experience, ability and behaviour to

carry out salvage. The intention would be to permit as broad an activity of salvage as possible. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the intention is not necessarily to restrict legitimate salvage operations.

Mr. Denzil Davies: As I understand it, the Government are saying that it is a crime to carry out salvage operations in territorial waters, but that they will license some people to carry out a crime in international waters. That is the point about jurisdiction. Although it is a crime, if one is reputable and goes along with the Ministry of Defence, one can be licensed to commit a crime. That is an extraordinary attitude.

Mr. Freeman: The representations of the salvage companies were that in international waters we have no power to prevent a foreign company from carrying out salvage operations on a sunken vessel, and that if they do not carry out the work some other company will. Our response has been to draw a balance. We have said that we will issue licences to reputable salvage companies so that they are not put at a disadvantage. I appeal this morning to foreign companies and citizens to respect the purpose and intent of the Bill, which we hope will shortly become an Act. Although our jurisdiction does not cover them, we hope that they will respect the legislation.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The Government are making a certain act in international waters a crime but the crime will apply only to British citizens, residents, ships and so on. The problem is that foreigners can do those acts and cannot be stopped. Are there any moves towards an international agreement because, obviously, that is the real solution? Now the Government are telling us that there is a genuine problem caused by the drafting of the legislation, and to get round it they will give some people, no doubt nice people whom they like, a licence to commit what would be a crime if somebody else did it. Perhaps there are other precedents in legislation for that.

Mr. Mates: There are.

Mr. Davies: It is certainly not to be encouraged that the Minister of Defence or any other Ministry, with no disrespect to them, can decide who commits a crime and who does not.

11 am

Mr. Freeman: Obviously, this Parliament can legislate only for its own citizens, but I hope that foreign companies and citizens will respect the intents and purposes of the legislation.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) asked about controlled sites, which are dealt with in clause 1. The provision will cover all vessels within a specific prescibed area of the sea. All diving within that controlled site will be prohibited. It will be an offence to dive in that controlled site, but the intention is to designate by statutory instrument only a few such sites.
I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Gentleman that named vessles will be disignated. It will be an offence to enter—board is too strong a word—to damage, remove or disturb the contents of a maritime war grave.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East made two implied criticisms. He welcomed the Bill, but he stressed that it was a private Member's Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East on introducting the Bill. The Government support the Bill strongly and warmly. The hon. Member for Kingston


upon Hull, East is not against the Bill's principles, but he is worried about the speed with which the Bill is being examined. This morning we are considering Lords amendments and the hon. Gentleman will agree that they do not affect the purposes of the Bill.

Mr. Prescott: I was complaining about the speed with which the Bill is being considered. It went through all its stages in one go. It has set some precedents in the speed with which it has been rushed through the House. Today's debate is revealing the difficulties involved in considering the Bill in this way. Once the Minister sits down we cannot intervene to question some of the essential points that he is making in his reply. That is not satisfactory, but we have to operate under the rules of the House.
I have already asked the Minister about international jurisdiction. I am sponsored by the National Union of Seamen, the members of which are concerned. When a vessel in international waters is designated, a British salvage company can operate with protection under the law because it will have a licence. That applies to British companies and British seamen. However, salvage is an international industry.
Some members of the NUS sail on ships flying foreign flags. British divers might have to work from a ship flying a Greek flag. They will be commiting an offence under the legislation because they are British citizens. They will be affected by the Greek law. What protection does a British seaman have under these circumstances?

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East is thinking on his feet and I am impressed with the speed with which he is doing that. He is asking important questions. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the dilemma. The Bill's purpose is to protect military vessels with human remains on hoard. We are talking about war graves. Some such vessels sank outside British territorial waters. In a reasonable and constructive way we are seeking to indicate during the passage of the Bill how seriously we take war graves and to provide a limited procedure for the control of British salvage companies when salvaging such vessles.
We intend to issue licences to reputable British companies so that they can operate in competition with foreign companies.

Mr. Prescott: The Minister has made some important comments about British citizens. I appreciate his difficulty, but I ask him again, what advice can he give to British seamen on a ship ruled by the law of another country because it bears the flag of that country? What happens if the British seaman disobeys the law of that country? Does he face prosecution under British law or Greek law? What advice can the Minister give to members of the NUS in that dilemma?

Mr. Freeman: I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety. His question is more than hypothetical. The hon. Gentleman accepts the principles behind the Bill. I hope that the dilemma that he describes will not occur. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's union will be able to give its members guidance.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East also asked me how a controlled site will be designated. This will be by statutory instrument in which the House will he involved. That provision is contained in clause 1(2).
The hon. Gentleman also asked about Scapa Flow. I assume that he has in mind the tourist attraction which

that has become. We are talking about German ships which were scuttled, not sunk, with human remains on board. I confirm that those German vessels will not be covered by the legislation so there will be no problem for divers or for the tourist industry.
I commend the amendments to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 10

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Lords amendment: No. 28, in page 9, line 31, at end insert
any of the Channel Islands or

Mr. Mates: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Mikardo: It is clearly right that the Channel Islands should be included in the Bill, but why has the Isle of Man not been added?

Mr. Prescott: We have arrived at the last amendment, which proposes to add the Channel Islands to the areas where the Bill will apply.
I was not prepared to vote for the previous amendment that we discussed, although the Minister assured me that he would write to me about the difficult problem that I presented to him. It seems that British seamen could also be affected by amendment No. 28. The house has a resonsibility to look after the citizens of this country and I do not believe that the Minister can give me a satisfactory answer to the questions that I asked him.
Amendment No. 28 is also in conflict with international law. The law of this country can apply only to our ships and citizens in British areas. The Bill proposes — uniquely, I think; I should he interested to hear whether the Minister knows of any other such case— to cover areas outside our jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction in international waters was to have been dealt with by the law of the sea conference, but opposition by the Americans and by our Government prevented a satisfactory solution.
I shall hope to use the Minister's letter to me to advise NUS members, many more of whom now serve on foreign flag ships, how to deal with salvage operations. I hope that the Minister will confirm that he will write to me. We shall let the Bill go on its way, on the understanding that the Department will look at the problem and give us some advice.

Mr. Freeman: I confirm that I understand the point that has been put with great force by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). I shall write to him.
The hon Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) asked why the Isle of Man was excluded from the Bill. The Isle of Man Government have advised us that the permissive extension clause—clause 10—would not be appropriate in their case, because responsibility for making orders in respect of wrecks of ships and aircraft on the seabed of the territorial waters of the island is vested in the Isle of Man Harbour Board under the Wreck and Salvage Act 1979 of the Tynwald.
We are advised that if any military wrecks are discovered within the territorial waters of the Isle of Man the Government would no doubt favourably consider a


designation order under Manx legislation in respect of that site. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar.

Question put and agreed to.

Protection of Children (Tobacco) Bill

Lords amendment considered.

Clause 2

AMENDMENT OF SECTION 18 OF THE CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (SCOTLAND) ACT 1937

Lords amendment: No. 1 in, page 2, line 21, at end insert—
(d) after subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
(6) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) of this section, any substance sold in a container (whether sealed or not) shall, subject to subsections (7) to (9) of this section, be presumed to conform to the description of the substance on the container.
(7) Where a prosecutor (within the meaning of section 462 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975) intends to rely on subsection (6) of this section, he shall give notice of his intention to the accused or his agent not less than 14 days before the commencement of the trial.
(8) The accused shall not be entitled to challenge the presumption in subsection (6) of this section, unless he or his agent gives notice to the said prosecutor of intention to do so not less than 7 days before the commencement of the trial.
(9) A notice under subsection (7) or (8) of this section shall be by recorded delivery letter, and the execution of the recorded delivery shall be sufficient evidence of the date of posting and of intimation of the notice, which shall be presumed to have been intimated to the addressee on the day after the day on which it was posted, except that, in the case of a notice posted on a Friday or a Saturday, it shall be presumed to have been so intimated on the Monday next following.".

Mr. John Home Robertson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a technical amendment, which applies only to Scotland. It arises because of the rules of evidence applicable to a criminal trail in Scotland. A prosecutor must prove the nature and contents of a container, such as a bottle or a tin, and evidence would require to be led of scientific analysis of the contents having been carried out by two forensic scientists. That is so even when the contents are specified on a label on the container or where the nature of the contents is not a matter of dispute between the Crown and the accused.
The amendment will do away with the need for full scientific examination in every case by creating a presumption, for the purposes of any trial, that any substance in a container, whether or not the container is sealed, shall be presumed to conform to the description of the substance in the container.
It is important to emphasise that that is a rebuttable presumption and does not compromise the accused's position. When the matter is contentious the accused can insist on full scientific proof. Under subsection (7) the prosecutor must give notice to an accused person of his intention to rely on the presumption, and thereafter it is open to the accused to give counter-notice of his intention to challenge the presumption.
The use of the presumption is, therefore, expected only in cases when the matter is not in dispute. In such cases, much time and expense will be saved in proceeding to trial without needing full scientific evidence. I understand that there are precedents for that principle.
The amendment would do away with the need for a procurator fiscal in Scotland to have the contents of packets of Skoal Bandits or cigarettes chemically analysed if all parties agree that the packet contains what it says it contains. I am grateful to the Lord Advocate for introducing this useful technical amendment in the other place, because it should further simplify the prosecution of those who sell tobacco products to young people under 16, but it will not prejudice the fundamental rights of the defendant.
I do not wish to delay the House, in view of the importance of our next business. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on his excellent Bill for the benefit of disabled people and I am pleased that I was able to assist him during its Committee stage. However, I shall dwell on my own Bill for another couple of minutes, because the amendment provides a useful opportunity to press the Minister on the enforcement of the Bill when, as we hope, it comes into effect in about three months' time.
The Bill has two fundamental purposes. The first is to make it easier to prosecute those who sell cigarettes to youngsters. It is a national scandal that this poisonous trade is being carried on to the tune of £90 million a year. A new generation is getting hooked on the lethal addiction to nicotine and we expect the Government and the prosecuting and police authorities to take action to deter the trade when the Bill comes into effect.
The most recent Government figures show that fewer than 50 prosecutions a year are made against those involved in the £90 million trade. It is clear that the old legislation has become a dead letter. My Bill should make it possible to crack down on that trade and I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is his intention.
The second intention of the Bill is to extend the ban on the sale of tobacco to youngsters to include tobacco for oral and nasal use, which specifically includes the notorious Skoal Bandits. Many of us would like to ban these dangerous products altogether, and it is nonsense that the people who produce them have been able to escape the ban on sales to youngsters. They are exempt from tobacco duty, they do not yet have to carry a Government health warning on the products and the United States tobacco company that manufactures them has even had a Government grant to establish a factory in East Kilbride.
I hope that my Bill will be the beginning of the end for Skoal Bandits in Britain. I am grateful to the House for supporting this measure to deal with a serious problem, and I am grateful to my noble Friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead for piloting the Bill through another place.
We must stress that legislation is not enough. It must be enforced, to deter the unscrupulous people involved in this trade. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government intend to crack down on this trade as soon as the Bill comes into effect.

Dr. John Marek: The Opposition welcome the amendment. It is useful, in that it will speed up justice and save time and administrative costs in a number of cases. In the past, prosecutions may not have been successful because the evidence has not been proved beyond doubt or because it was suggested that the contents of a box were different from those described on the label. Do the terms of the amendment already apply in England? If not, why has a similar procedure not been introduced to save the public analyst's time when a dispute arises?
Finally, I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on bringing the Bill forward. It will be a useful addition to our legislation. Under-age smoking is one of the most serious questions before us, and if this small step helps young people not to become addicted to nicotine before the age of 16, as I am sure it will, all hon. Members will welcome the Bill, and I hope that it will receive Royal Assent as soon as possible.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has rightly pointed out that this is a technical amendment that arises because of the rules of evidence applicable to a criminal trial in Scotland. The amendment applies only to Scotland, and I can tell the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) that I understand a similar problem does not arise in England. The hon. Member for East Lothian spelt out clearly the reasons for the amendment and it would serve no purpose for me to repeat them.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Government's intention regarding enforcement of the Bill. Clause 3(3) states that the Act will come into effect three months after the day on which it is passed. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is our intention to have a wide-ranging publicity campaign through the Scottish Information Office, to educate the public and we shall bring the Bill to the attention of health boards, the police and prosecuting authorities in Scotland.
I am sure that the passing of the Bill and the publicity which it receives will have a substantial deterrent effect on those who may be tempted to sell tobacco or tobacco products to young people below the statutory age. Clearly there is limit to the extent to which chief constables can deploy resources to combat the problem, but I am sure that they will have due regard to it within the competing demands on their resources.
Finally, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on steering the Bill so successfully through and I assure him that Ministers with responsibility for health will use their best endeavours in the current discussions with United States Tobacco to ensure that Skoal Bandits are not sold to anyone below the appropriate age.

Question put and agreed to.

Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

New Clause

APPOINTMENT OF AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES OF DISABLED PERSONS

Lords Amendment: No. 1, before clause 1, insert the following new clause:
. — (1) In this Act "authorised representative", in relation to a disabled person, means a person for the time being appointed by or on behalf of that disabled person (in accordance with regulations made under this section) to act as his authorised representative for the purposes of this Act.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision with respect to the appointment of persons to act as the authorised representatives of disabled persons, including provision—

(a) for the manner in which the appointment of a person as an authorised representative is to be made; and
(b) for any such appointment to be notified to the relevant local authority (as defined in the regulations) if made otherwise than by that authority.

(3) Any such regulations—

(a) may provide for the parent or guardian of a disabled person under the age of 16 or appoint himself or some other person as the authorised representative of the disabled person (but shall not permit a person under that age himself to appoint a person as his authorised representative);
(b) may provide for the appointment of a person as the authorised representative of a disabled person who is a child in the care of a local authority to be made by that authority in such circumstances as may be specified in the regulations;
(c) may, in accordance with subsection (4), provide for the appointment of a person as the authorised representative of a disabled person to be made by, or under arrangements made by, a local authority in a case where the disabled person appears to the authority to be unable to appoint a person as his authorised representative by reason of any mental or physical incapacity;
(d) may contain such incidental or supplementary provisions as the Secretary of State thinks fit.

(4) Regulations under paragraph (c) of subsection (3) may make provision—

(a) for requiring a local authority, for the purpose of enabling them to determine whether a disabled person is unable to appoint a person as his authorised representative as mentioned in that paragraph, to obtain the opinion of a registered medical practitioner;
(b) for authorising a local authority, where they determine that a disabled person is so unable, either—

(i) themselves to appoint a person as the disabled person's authorised representative, or
(ii) to make with any voluntary organisation, person or persons approved by them for the purpose of such arrangements as they think fit for such an appointment to be made by the organisation, person or persons concerned;

(c) for requiring or authorising a local authority, before determining the question specified in paragraph (a), or (as the case may be) before making any appointment of an authorised representative, or any arrangements, in pursuance of paragraph (b), to consult any of the following, namely—

(i) a person or persons appointed by them for the purpose, or
(ii) a person or persons falling within any class or description specified in the regulations;

(d) for requiring a local authority, in such circumstances as may be specified in the regulations, to review the case of a disabled person whose authorised representative has been appointed in pursuance of paragraph (b) (whether by the local authority or under any arrangements made by them) for the purpose of determining whether he is still unable to appoint a person as his authorised representative as mentioned in subsection (3)(c).

(5) Subsections (2) to (4) shall apply, with any necessary modifications, in relation to the termination of the appointment of a person as an authorised representative as they apply in relation to the making of such an appointment.
(6) It is hereby declared that any person exercising under Part II of the 1983 Act or Part V of the 1984 Act—

(a) the functions of the nearest relative of a disabled person, or
(b) the functions of the guardian of a disabled person received into guardianship under that Part of that Act,

may, if appointed as such in accordance with this section, also act as that person's authorised representative.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider the following Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 10, at end insert—
(2A) In relation to a disabled person whose authorised representative has been appointed by virtue of subsection (3) of section (Appointment of authorised repesentatives of disabled persons), subsections (1) and (2) above shall each have effect as follows—

(a) if the appointment was made by virtue of subsection(3) (a) of that section, the words "the parent or guardian of" shall be inserted after the words "if so requested by";and
(b) if the appointment was made by virtue of subsection (3)(b) or (c) of that section, the words "if so requested by the disabled person" shall be omitted."

No. 3, in page 2, line 24, at end insert—
(aa) in hospital accommodation provided by the Secretary of State under section 3(1)(a) of the 1977 Act or, in Scotland, in hospital accommodation (other than accommodation at a State hospital) provided by the Secretary of State under section 36(1)(a) of the 1978 Act, or
No. 4, in page 2, line 45, at end insert—
(4A) In paragraph (b) of subsection (4) "voluntary organisation" in relation to England and Wales includes a housing association within the meaning of the Housing Associations Act 1985.
No. 5, in page 3, leave out lines 1 to 34.
No. 6, in page 3, line 37, after "appropriate" insert
and such other bodies as appear to him to be concerned
No. 7, in page 4, line 2, at end insert—
(9A) An order under subsection (9) may provide for any provision of regulations made under section (Appointment of authorised representatives of disabled persons) to have effect for the purposes of the order with such modifications as may be prescribed by the order, and in that event the reference in subsection (1) of that section to regulations made under that section shall be read as a reference to any such regulations as they have effect in accordance with the order.
No. 9, in page 4, leave out line 8.
No. 10, in page 4, line 9, at beginning insert "and"

Mr. Clarke: Before I address the detailed amendments to clause 1. I want to make a few general comments about the progress of the Bill in another place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do his utmost to keep in order. We must address ourselves to the content of the amendments before the House.

Mr. Clarke: As one who has witnessed the expertise from the Chair this morning in controlling difficulties on other measures, I shall do my utmost to keep in order. However, it is appropriate to acknowledge the efforts of Baroness Masham of Ilton who steered through almost 100 amendments in concert with the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, Baroness Trumpington, to whom warm thanks are also due, especially in view of her other responsibilities.
The small band of civil servants — indeed, key officials — in the DHSS has also laboured hard to improve the Bill. They, in consultation with Mr. Peter Mitchell, Mr. John Healy and Mr. William Bingley, have done a superb job in bringing the Bill to the House in its present shape with the new clause and the amendments. I think that the Minister will agree that they have made our task this morning a great cleat easier and we must thank them for it.
I apologise to the House for the reams of Lords amendments, including those that we are now discussing, which need to be considered today. I am sure that all hon. and right hon. Members will appreciate that another place was in many ways compelled to do the Committee work on the Bill that emerged from this House which might will have been done upstairs if Ministers had accepted rather earlier the principles which I am now happy to say they so warmly espouse.
Clause 1 has been split into two for convenience. The new clause contains all the provisions relating to the appointment of authorised representatives by disabled people or on their behalf. Most of the new clause consists of regulation-making powers in relation to the complex balance needed where the disabled person is unable to appoint someone himself.
After five months of intense thought by all concerned, including a seminar held at MIND — to whom the presence of these clauses are largely due—it has been concluded that there are no organisations in the country other than local authorities on which the duty to make the necessary arrangements for these people could be laid in primary legislation. I understand that "double delegation" would have been frowned on by the courts—that is, giving the Secretary of State a free hand to choose the intermediary bodies at a later date and also giving those bodies the power to delegate the responsibility as they wish.
Nevertheless, the local authority will also he the authority providing the services in relation to which the representative will operate. This potential conflict of interest is not wholly satisfactory, as the Minister will probably agree. One of the most important characteristics of the concept of representation or advocacy for disabled people as it has developed in this country and abroad is that the representative owes sole loyalty to the disabled person and is truly independent of the service-providing authority.
Where representatives are perhaps too pushy, too demanding, or too successful, there may be a temptation to get rid of them. It is vital that once the Bill becomes an Act careful consideration is given to the rules that will cover this issue to ensure that sufficient independence is built into the procedure, especially where, under (4) (b) (i) local authorities appoint representatives themselves. Therefore, the wording of the amendments explicitly leaves open the possibility that the local authority might set up a panel, or appoint a voluntary organisation, to

fulfil this function so that it can remain at arm's length. I wish to make only one other brief comment on the procedures relating to adults who are unable to make an appointment themselves on account of incapacity. The decision whether someone is unable to appoint an authorised representative himself may not be cut and dried, and the amendments include a stipulation that the regulations may require the advice of a doctor. However, they also allow others to be consulted on that question. Those caring full-time for a disabled person may have valid views on this as valid as a doctor, who only sees a person occasionally.
11.30 am
On the detail of new clause 1, I should like to say a word about the arrangements for disabled children. In most cases parents will appoint representatives for their children, but at a late stage the Department expressed concern about parents who had, for example, harmed their children in some way. Therefore, the amendments envisage the appointment of an authorised representative for children in care, to be made by the local authority. Unfortunately, at a stage too late for amendment, it was pointed out that there might be a few children who had neither a parent nor guardian and who were not in the care of a local authority.
Perhaps I may be permitted a mild criticism. Some of the technical problems with what was, after all, the Government's new clause — which was introduced on Report — have been rather late in emerging. Nevertheless, I do not want to appear to be ungrateful or churlish. I am convinced that the new clause provides an adequate framework for achieving the Bill's intentions.
I am sure that you will be pleased to learn, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is little to say about Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 10 to clause 1, which are largely consequential. However, amendment No. 3 is most important, and will greatly assist people who are seeking to move from hospital into the community. It allows access for the authorised representative to people in hospital in advance of the general extension of the clause to the NHS. I am rather sorry that it appears there is some accommodation for children in England and Wales—but not apparently in Scotland — excluded from the list. Again, that was discovered rather late in the day. However, I am assured that that will be tidied up in the forthcoming child care Bill, and the Minister may also have something to say about that.
In connection with amendment No. 6, may I ask the Minister when he intends to commence the consultation regarding the extension of the clauses to the NHS and other local authority services. The vast majority of people and organisations, in response to the Government's consultative document on the Bill earlier this year, expressed concern that the Bill recognises the representative only in relation to social services provided by a local authority. As I am sure that the House would agree, one of the main purposes of representation is to prevent disabled people from falling through the net of services that are increasingly provided by different authorities. It makes little sense to limit the scope of a representative to just the social services.
Finally, it might be appropriate if the Minister, when he responds to each group of amendments, could say when he expects to be able to bring each clause into force. I am aware of the Minister's commitment to the principles of


the Bill, and I welcome that. It was helpful at several stages. I am sure that he appreciates the despondency, not to say anger, that would be widespread in the country if key parts of the Act languished ineffectually on the statute book.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), whose assistance I most readily acknowledge, just as my fellow sponsors would do, received a letter from the Prime Minister which was rightly widely publicised, and which is relevant to this clause and the amendments. In response to my right hon. Friend's question about resources, she did not appear to be particularly generous. I must admit that that happened at a fairly early stage in our discussions, and so, given the Government's rethink on these matters and the Minister's input, especially in recent months, I hope that it will be accepted that this part of the Bill will lack true meaning unless the necessary resources are provided.
I do not believe that the House or the other place would appreciate any Government who hid behind the Treasury in saying that the resources cannot be made available. After all, both Houses have expressed themselves clearly on the priorities that we hope to identify. Today of all days, on 4 July, it is important to assert the independence of disabled persons. They are intitled to that independence. They are entitled to enjoy the same liberties as the rest of us: true liberty in the meaningful sense of that word. I believe that the Bill will assist in many ways in achieving that objective, which is widely shared by both Houses and by the people of this country. We know that the authorities want to implement the Bill. The message from this House, supported overwhelmingly by the country at large, must be, "Give them the money, and let them get on with the job."

Mr. Ian Mikardo: Unhappily, in the past seven years or so there has been some diminution and erosion of elements of our social services provision, and that has adversely affected some groups of people. Probably no group has suffered more as a result than handicapped persons. My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has, therefore, done a great job in introducing a Bill that at least makes some contribution towards making up for the losses that have been sustained by handicapped persons. He has earned himself much credit in the House, and if there is a heaven he has earned himself some good Brownie points there.
I rise only to ask about some minor points. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has unparalleled expertise in this area, and perhaps he will be able to put me right. Subsection 4(a) of the amendment requires the local authority to
obtain the opinion of a registered medical practitioner
and would seem to be a sensible provision, but subsection 4(c) requires the local authority to consult

"(i) a person or persons appointed by them for the purpose, or
(ii) a person or persons falling within any class or description."

What sort of people could they be if their views were authoritative but if they were not medical practitioners? Why has a distinction been drawn?
Incidentally, there is also a typographical error on page (3) of the Amendment Paper, in that at the end of line 5 there are some closing inverted commas for which there do

not appear to be any corresponding opening commas. I just mention that so that the error can be put right when the Bill is reprinted, as it will have to be.
What is the reason for amendment No. 9, which would leave out line 8? Its effect would apparently be to leave that part of the Bill without any definition of a health board. I cannot think why we should want to define everything else except that. But perhaps I have misread it, and if so I apologise.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall try to help the House by pointing out that the closing inverted commas to which the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) referred are those which appear to follow the opening inverted commas at the beginning of the second line of amendment No. 1.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I welcome the fact that the Bill has reached this stage. I hope that within a short time it will complete its passage through Parliament.
I ask for some clarification of the Government's intentions with regard to Amendment No. 1. Proposed subsection (4)(b) says that regulations may make provision
for authorising a local authority, where they determine that a disable person is so unable, either—

(i) themselves to appoint a person as the disabled person's authorised representative, or"

alternatively
any voluntary organisation, person or persons".
I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that it is intended to make that a hard and fast provision. Subsection (4) is a permissive provision under which a local authority may appoint a representative. I should like an undertaking that that will happen. We discussed in Committee the position of those who were severely handicapped who could not appoint representatives of their own. Those are the people who most need the Bill's provisions.
Clause 1(9) presents another aspect of concern. I should like confirmation that the changes made in the other place help rather than hinder the progress for which we hope by extending the provisions to health authorities and local authorities where appropriate. Many people feel that such a provision is needed. I hope that there is no diminution in our intention to extend the provision in that direction in due course. Again, subsection (9) is a permissive provision. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that he hopes to move in that direction at an early date after the implementation of the Bill.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on his hard work and his achievements in getting the Bill to this stage. I hope that I shall not again detain hon. Members for too long.

Mr. Alfred Morris: On this important day for my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), who has my warmly renewed congratulations and for whom I am full of admiration, I know that he will join me in paying tribute to the sustained and invaluable help he has received at all stages of the Bill's consideration from my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) who, sadly, is not able, because of constituency commitments, to be with us this morning. My right hon. Friend has played a distinguished part in all our


proceedings on the Bill, and he will be as active in campaigning for the Bill's full and speedy implementation as he has been in its making.
I know that the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) regret very much that they cannot be here for these final proceedings. As the House knows they, too, are tried, trusted and widely respected campaigners for disabled people.
11.45 am
This is an important part of the Bill. It brings representation into rehabilitation, which could do much, given the support that it merits, to improve the quality of life of people with disabilities and to ease the strain on families. Much progress has been made over the years in strengthening the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and in extending its implementation. Yet all too often the emphasis has been too much on what the providers of help under the Act think best rather than on what its recipients see as most likely to meet their needs. Now we seek to redress that imbalance, and, as the House as a whole must agree, not before time.
Rehabilitation is best defined as giving the disabled person the right help in the right place and at the right time. The disabled person and/or his or her representative have an important role in ensuring this, and I welcome the painstaking work that has been done in another place.
With regard to subsection (4), to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) referred, for perfectly acceptable reasons the procedures for the appointment of representatives have not been fully worked out. The clause is, of course, designed to give the DHSS sufficient flexibility in writing the regulations. I am sure that the Minister will want to respond to my hon. Friend's important points.
The most important issue is whether we can extract from the Minister dates for the implementation of each clause and a commitment to allocate the necessary resources. I want strongly to press the issue at this first opportunity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West referred to the Prime Minister's letter to me of 24 April, in which she said:
The Government have made it clear that, if the Bill is enacted, it would not be possible to make commencement orders to bring into effect the provisions of the Bill which have significant financial implications until such time as the necessary funds could be made available.
That is just not good enough. I hope that the Minister will now give us much better news than that conveyed by the Prime Minister. For this and other key parts of the Bill to lie impotently on the statute book, without being brought into force, would be widely seen as a betrayal of the many thousands of people with disabilities whose initiative and lobbying helped to create this important and humane Bill. I welcome the work done by Lady Masham and others on both sides of the House in the other place and urge the Minister now to give us the best possible guidance that he can on implementation and the provision of resources.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I, too, begin be extending my congratulations to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on his success in steering the Bill to this position, which we hope is almost the last stage before royal assent, to all the hon. Members and people who have been mentioned in the debate who

have played an important and supportive part and to my noble Friends, who were rightly mentioned, for their work in the other place.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West made what for him must count, I suppose, as a slightly acid remark about how we might have had fewer amendments in the other place if the Government had behaved differently earlier in the Commons. I do not want to sully this morning's proceedings by engaging in an argument along those lines.
Although this is unquestionably the Bill of the hon. Member for Monklands, West, the Government have clutched it to their hearts with considerable enthusiasm, as reflected in the devoted work of DHSS officials, to which the hon. Gentleman rightly played tribute. I wish to add to that tribute. I was in some confusion when contemplating this debate as to whether the hon. Gentleman or I was supposed to be moving that the House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. I am sure that it is appropriate that the hon. Gentleman should have done so. That is the spirit in which I and my right hon. and hon. Friends approached the Bill, although I would have been happy to have undertaken that task.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West has already explained that the main substantive change to this part of the Bill, introduced in another place, is that the clause now spells out in more detail the Secretary of State's power to make provision by regulations for the appointment of representatives for disabled people who, because of mental or physical incapacity, are unable to appoint someone themselves. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Health said on Report that further consultation with the Bill's sponsors would be needed on that matter in relation to the Bill as it then stood. I am delighted that those consultations have produced the reasonably satisfactory outcome which we now have before us. We do now genuinely have a sound legislative basis for the provision of representatives for disabled people.
Hon. Members have raised many points during the brief proceeding. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have kindly spared me the task of pointing out to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) that the inverted commas at the end correspond with the inverted commas at the beginning. That is not a matter which need detain the House for long. For all I know it may be that the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar has some other motives for raising these points which are, at the moment, obscure to me.

Mr. Mikardo: Heaven forbid.

Mr. Newton: I will not speculate further on that.
The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar did raise some other points, especially in relation to subsection 4 of the new clause, about the types of person, other than medical practitioners, whom we might envisage being involved. We had in mind carers and relatives in particular. However, there will be full consultations on the details of the use of the powers in that subsection. He also asked about the reference to health boards and why they were not defined. The reference to health boards was deleted because it has been included in the general definitional clause 12 under amendment 78.
The child care aspect of the clause was raised by the hon. Member for Monk lands, West. I used to be, although have not been for some time now, the Minister responsible for child care matters. If one starts to look into the


complexity of current child care law and the various provisions under which children may be taken into care and the associated provisions, they are of almost incredible complexity. It is a pity that the Department has not spotted every last arcane corner of this aspect in its work, but I cannot say that I am entirely surprised. We shall certainly seek to remedy any defects that there may prove to be in the legislation which, as the hon. Gentleman said, the Government are hoping to undertake in relation to child care law generally. Meanwhile, I accept what he said about the need for careful consultation and we shall seek to meet any of those tidying up points in the way that I have described.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) asked about the proposed Subsection (4)(b) and what we have in mind there. We are not proposing a compulsory duty on local authorities to set up arrangements for appointing representatives for people unable to act. We feel that that should be left to local decision in the light of local priorities. I hope that that does not come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman because my understanding is that that has been made clear to the Bill's sponsors throughout all the proceedings.

Mr. Wigley: I am afraid that it does come as somewhat of a surprise because, at earlier stages of discussion, we made our belief clear that the right to representation should be a right to a disabled person. If that person, because of his or her disability, cannot exercise that right, it should not be any less of a right. That requires there to be a responsibility either for a local authority or somebody else to make that appointment. I am not splitting hairs as to who should be doing it, but I am absolutely certain that somebody should be doing it.
It comes as a bit of a shock at this late stage to understand that it will be left to the whim of a local authority. The local authority may not use the powers available and disabled people would miss out. It may be too late at this stage of the Bill to change anything in terms of the provisions of legislation but I press the Minister strongly to think further on this matter. It does not put an additional cost on local authorities. It is a duty that can be put on them very reasonably and disabled people would expect that to happen.

Mr. Newton: I note what the hon. Gentleman said and I will think further about it. He knows me well enough to know that it would be my hope and expectation that these provisions should be used. However, we have to think with some care before deciding to go down the track of compulsion against the background of a position in which, whatever resources are made available local authorities will have a range of decisions to make about the balance of priorities and the way in which they use particular provisions and provide services generally. However, I note, not merely as a routine gesture, the comments that the hon. Gentleman has made and the strength with which he feels about this matter.

Mr. Wigley: In case I have misunderstood more in relation to these provisions, could the Minister confirm that a disabled person who is capable of appointing a representative does have that as of right, under the provisions of the Bill? What we are saying is that the right

exists without question for people capable of exercising it and it is only those most in need and who are incapable of exercising it who will not have it as a right.

Mr. Newton: That is a slightly tendentious way of putting it. The hon. Gentleman is certainly right in respect of the right of disabled people to appoint representatives. The issue is whether we should impose a duty on local authorities of the kind he described in relation to those unable to appoint representatives for themselves. There is probably very little between us. Indeed, there is probably nothing between us about what we would like to see. However, I would not wish to disguise from the hon. Gentleman that at this moment it is not in our mind to impose that duty on local authorities. I shall reflect further on what he has said although, manifestly, there is now no further opportunity for amending the Bill.
The main thrust of the remarks from virtually every direction, certainly from the hon. Member for Monklands, West and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), concerned the question of implementation of this clause and other provisions in the Bill. There is no doubt that the representation provision will have clear resource implications for local authorities and, if the provisions are extended to them, for health authorities. At this stage I cannot attempt to give a precise estimate of what those costs might be because that is something that needs to be assessed in further consultation with the authorities concerned. It would be wrong for me to attempt to second-guess the outcome of that further work in advance.
The House knows already, because it was said on several occasions during the proceedings in the House and, no doubt in the other place, that the total annual cost of implementing the Bill has been estimated to be something in excess of £100 million in a full year. That is not just a figure that the Government have dragged out of the air in order to show some of the difficulties with which we are faced. It rests to a significant extent on the figure that the local authorities have placed on the provisions. It is also clear that the cost of implementing the representation provisions could represent a substantial proportion of that total.
It is only honest for me to say to the House that against that background I cannot, at this stage, give an undertaking as to when resources might be available to bring this part of the Bill into effect. I have already said that I sympathise with and share entirely the wish of hon. Members to press ahead as soon as possible with implementation of the Bill, and I hope to be able to be a little more specific and helpful about some later parts of the Bill that we shall be considering. I have to say, however, that it would be wrong to impose extra burdens on local authorities and health authorities under this part of the Bill and others, which have significant resource implications, until we can ensure that the resources are available to carry them out. It is against that background that we shall have to consider when we are able to bring these provisions into effect.

12 noon

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Prime Minister appeared to say that this and other parts of the Bill requiring extra finance will not be implemented for the forseeable future. Will the Minister say when he expects this part of the Bill to be brought into effect by commencement order?

Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can add to what I have already said, which is that the timing of bringing into effect these provisions must depend upon when we are able to ensure that local authorities, and health authorities if the extension takes place, have the necessary resources to carry through the extension. We shall do our best to ensure that we reach that position as soon as possible. I cannot give any undertaking of what "as soon as possible" means in this context. I mean that we shall be working with a view to making progress as rapidly as we reasonably can.
It is in the light of these considerations that we shall have to consider the timing of further consultation on the possible extension of the representation provision to health authorities and to other local authority services, and on the appointment regulations. It may be that there will be work there that can be undertaken in the course of refining what the cost of implementing the proposals would be. That is something to which we shall give careful consideration.
I am sorry not to be able to be more forthcoming with right hon. and hon. Members. I hope that they will take account of the fact that we have been making progress in a variety of ways. If I were in a different frame of mind, I would take up one of the remarks of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar. We have been making progress in various ways in improving both benefits and services for the disabled, and most recently in the extension of the invalid care allowance to married women. I resist any implication by anyone on either side of the House that the Government have not shown their concern to maintain the pace of development in this area.
There are several hon. Members who know as well as anyone that the range of demands, requests and pressures, and the scope for developing both services and social security benefits for the disabled is almost infinite. Careful choices and difficult decision are involved. We shall continue to make what progress we can, but I cannot put a date on the particular piece of progress that we are discussing.
I welcome unreservedly the fact that these provisions are to go onto the statute book. I hope that their mere existence on the statute book will have a helpful effect in causing local authorities to think about the way in which they seek to meet the perceived needs and wishes of disabled people in the way in which they provide services.

Question put agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 2

ASSESSMENT BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF NEEDS OF DISABLED PERSONS

Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 4, line 15, leave out "On any occasion when" and insert
Where—

(a) on any assessment carried out by them in pursuance of any provision of this Act, or
(b) on any other occasion,"

Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following Lords amendments: No. 12, in page 4, line 26, leave out from "(1)" to "the" in line 29 and insert
 , or the period mentioned in that subsection has expired without any such representations being made, and the

authority have reached a decision on the question referred to in that subsection (having taken into account any representations made as mentioned above)
No. 13, in page 4, leave out lines 32 to 34 and insert—


"(a) either specifying—

(i) any needs of the disabled person which in the opinion of the authority call for the provision by them of any statutory services, and
(ii) in the case of each such need, the statutory services that they propose to provide to meet that need,

or stating that, in their opinion, the disabled person has no needs calling for the provision by them of any such services; and
(b) giving an explanation of their decision; and
(c) containing particulars of the right of the disabled person or his authorised representative to make representations with respect to the statement under subsection (4)."

No. 14, in page 4, line 40, leave out from "services" to end of line 43.
No. 15, in page 5, line 2, leave out from "matter" to "that" in line 3 and insert
included in the statement supplied under subsection (2)".
No. 16, in page 5, line 6, leave out "further".
No. 17, in page 4, line 6, leave out
the particular need in question
and insert "that matter".
No. 18, in page 5, leave out lines 9 to 11 and insert—
(a) consider (or, as the case may bc, reconsider) whether any, and (if so) what, statutory services should be provided by them for the disabled person to meet any need identified in the representations; and".
No. 19, in page 5, line 15, after "Where" insert "(a)".
No. 20, in page 5, line 17, after "writing" insert
(or in each of those ways)".
No. 21, in page 5, line 18, after "incapacity," insert "or
(b) both of those persons are in that position (whether by reason of the same incapacity or not,".
No. 22, in page 5, line 25, at end insert—
(6A) In determining whether they are required to provide any services under subsection (6) to meet any need of the disabled person or his authorised representative and (if so) what those services should be, the local authority shall have regard to any views expressed by either of those persons as to the necessity for any such services or (as appropriate) to any views so expressed as to the services which should be so provided.".
No. 23, in page 5, line 28, leave out from "both," to end of line 39.
No. 24, after Clause 2 insert the following new Clause—

Services under s. 2 of the 1970 Act: duty to consider needs of disabled person
 . When requested to do so by—

(a) a disabled person,
(b) his authorised representative, or
(c) any person who provides care for him in the circumstances mentioned in section 5,

a local authority shall decide whether the needs of the disabled person call for the provision by the authority of any services in accordance with section 2(1) of the 1970 Act (provision of welfare services).".
No. 56, in clause 5, page 9, line 36, at end insert—
(2) Where that other person is unable to communicate, or (as the case may be) be communicated with, orally or in writing (or in each of those ways) by reason of any mental or physical incapacity, the local authority shall provide such services as, in their opinion, are necessary to ensure that any such incapacity does not prevent the authority from being properly informed as to the ability of that person to continue to provide care as mentioned in subsection (1).
(3) Section 2(6A) shall apply for the purposes of subsection (2) above as it applies for the purposes of section


2(6), but as if any reference to the disabled person or his authorised representative were a reference to the person mentioned in subsection (2).".
Lords amendments Nos. 13, 18 and 24 involve privilege.

Mr. Clarke: We are now considering a group of amendments to the clauses which are concerned with local authority assessments in general, and in particular those under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) is rightly remembered for his immense contribution in piloting that measure through the House.
Clause 2 was introduced by the Government on Report, and it is fair to say that its substance was widely welcomed when canvassed in the consultation document. On reflection, however, the drafting was seen to be unnecessarily restrictive and would probably have caused more problems for local authorities if there were arguments as to whether a disabled person was entitled to a review.
Broadly speaking, amendments Nos. 11 to 18 ensure that a disabled person or his representative may receive a written statement if they request it after any assessment and may ask for a review of any decision in any circumstances. I shall refer only explicitly to the substantive amendments. Amendment No. 12 gives a right to a written statement even if there had been no representations by a disabled person or his representative before the assessment.
Amendment No. 13 requires the statement to specify the needs of the disabled person as well as the services to be provided to meet them. This may seem a minor clarification but it will prove useful if there is a dispute as to how the needs should be met — for example the common choice between a stairlift or downstairs adaptations on which there is often disagreement between disabled people and the social services. In combination with amendments Nos. 14 and 18, it provides the right of review on anything in the statement.
Amendments Nos. 19 to 23 clarify the right of either a disabled person or his representative to assistance if either or both have a communication handicap. Amendment No. 56 to clause 5 extends this right to communication assistance to carers during a local authority assessment of the disabled person. New subsection (6A), introduced by amendment No. 22, attempts to meet some of the concern expressed principally by the British Deaf Association. In determining both the need for communication assistance and the nature of that assistance the local authority must have regard to the views expressed by the disabled person or his representative, who are, of course, uniquely qualified to identify what is required.
During the passage of the Bill through both Houses there has been some confusion over the right to ask for an assessment for services under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, in particular in relation to the carers' clause, where many right hon. and hon. Members believed that it was essential for carers to have the independent right to ask for an assessment of the person for whom they were caring. The purpose of this was to prevent their own possible breakdown and enable the

social services to fill the gaps so that the disabled person could continue living in his own home on the basis of genuine shared care.
To be frank, I never really understood Ministers' objections to the original carers' clause, and I said so at the time; but, being a reasonable person, despite the acid comments which I might make from time to time, I accepted the half loaf that the Government offered on Report and rested content with three and a half of the four key points I was asking the House to accept then. During discussions since then, however, the Department agreed to introduce the new clause after clause 2. Happily it is one of the most comprehensible clauses in the Bill and puts beyond doubt the duty of a local authority to assess the need of a disabled person for any of the services listed in section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 on request of the disabled person, his or her authorised representative or the carer as defined in clause 5.
Apart from the carers' issue a problem has arisen, certainly for lay people and even for some lawyers, from the complex drafting of section 2 of the 1970 Act. Although the best legal advice and, indeed, the departmental circular issued in August 1970, has always maintained that a local authority has a duty to make an assessment, this is not stated clearly in that section, and as recently as February 1986 a disabled person received a letter from a chief executive's department which flatly denied that the duty existed.
Baroness Masham quoted at length from this letter when moving this new clause in another place, and I shall not repeat it here. I shall only restate my thanks to Ministers for responding to the concern expressed. I can now claim to have at least three and three quarters of what I was seeking on Report—and even a bit more.
However, there are still some fears, among disabled people that clause 5 could be misinterpreted and encourage local authorities to look to residential care as a solution rather than to provide the domiciliary help specified in the 1970 Act. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that his Department's circular will be explicit on this point, and state unreservedly that the purpose of the Act is to enable disabled people to remain living in their own homes as long as they wish to do so.
Finally, on implementation, the new clause should come into force immediately as it is simply a confirmation of the existing law. There should be no difficulties. Not to do so might increase the confusion as some people might think assessments were not necessary until it was in force. I also hope that clauses 2 and 5 could come into force next April, as there is nothing totally new involved. Many local authorities, all of which have been widely consulted, will have to make only minimal adaptations to their procedures, although some will obviously have to take their responsibilities under the existing law more seriously and thereby incur greater expense.

Mr. Mikardo: I am bound to say, with all the charity that I can muster, that amendment No. 11 is nonsensical. It replaces one definition with another that says exactly the same thing, but takes much longer to say it. We can always be sure that when departmental lawyers start to draft amendments they will ensure that the revised wording is a good deal longer than the wording that went before, even if it says the same thing.
In this case, four words are replaced by 23. Let me paraphrase what the two versions say. The first says, "on any occasion". The second one says, "on any particular occasion or any other occasion." Can anybody tell me, in terms of the well of English, pure and undefiled, what difference there is between those phrases? I can find no difference,. What would be the difference between a ticket from London Transport that said, "This ticket entitles you to travel to any station on the system", and one that said, "This ticket entitles you to travel to Piccadily Circus or any other station on the system."? What would be the difference between my referring to every hon. Member and referring to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar and any other hon. Member? This is just a piece of normal, legalistic verbal diarrhoea that comes from the recesses of departmental meetings.
Amendment No. 14 is the only one of their Lordships' amendments with which I disagree, but because I do not wish to waste any time I shall not press my strong disagreement to a Division. The amendment takes away the obligation, when a disabled person has authorised representations that have been turned down, for information that he has the right to make further representations to be given to him. I cannot see any justification for that. It is contrary to all our traditions.
12.15 pm
I can take a parallel from the Minister's Department. If an insurance officer rejects a claim, the notification of the rejection of the claim is accompanied by a notification that the claimant is allowed to appeal against that rejection. In some cases, for example in applications for immigration or entry certificates under the immigration rules, the rejections of representations have the notification that an individual is allowed to make representations to another authority.
Do we not want handicapped people to exercise their rights? What is the good of giving them rights if we do not facilitate the exercise of those rights? We must remember that we are talking about people who are badly handicapped. In the nature of things, many handicapped people and their representatives will not know, when their application is turned down, that they have a right to come back. Why should we not tell them? This is an infringement of civil liberties. If we had been in other circumstances than midday on Friday, I should have wanted to divide the House against the amendment.
As in the previous group of amendments, if this group is implemented, it will involve some expenditure, perhaps more than that occasioned under the previous group. When dealing with that group, the Minister said —doubtless he will say the same thing on this group when pressed — that he could give no guarantees about implementation. It is a little hollow for him to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on all the work that he has done and his achievement in getting the Bill so far if he will not provide the wherewithal for the Bill to be effective. My hon. Friend cannot provide the wherewithal. It must come from public funds. Although local authorities are involved, we know that with the inextricable weaving of local and national finances, the extent to which the Bill will be implemented, if at all, depends on the extent to which the Minister can chisel a bit more money out of one who is probably the most uncaring Chancellor of the Exchequer this century.
Unless the Minister is prepared to have a bash at the Chancellor, his congratulations to my hon. Friend are hollow. It is only my charitable nature that prevents me from using a more perjorative word than that. I urge the Minister to try to put money from the Chancellor where his mouth is.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I intervene to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) said about implementation of clauses 2 and 5 and to endorse his submission that the clauses could and should come into force at the beginning of the next financial year, in April 1987. We are at the beginning of the Public Expenditure Survey Committee annual round. There is thus plenty of time for additional money needed by local authorities to be built into the rate support grant. Will the Minister be pressing for that to happen? In the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), will he be tryng his best to influence the Treasury fully to implement the Bill at the earliest possible date?
There are some who feel that the local authority associations have been "bidding" up the costs of clause 2 for wholly understandable reasons. They see a close parallel with the Government's volte face over the invalid care allowance. As soon as the Government were forced by the European Court to extend the benefit to married women, the cost of doing so fell both inexplicably and dramatically.
I am convinced that once the Bill becomes an Act and the local authorities and the Department of Health and Social Security start serious negotiations, within the scope of next year's social services expenditure, the hon. Gentleman will end up with an estimate of its cost which he will be able to persuade his colleagues is both acceptable and excellent value for money. Certainly it would be far better value for money than most of the substantial amounts that his Department currently pays out in board-and-lodging payments to rather dubious private homes.
The Government have cut social security spending by £11·1 billion, while giving £4·4 billion in tax cuts to those earning more than £30,000 a year. When they came to power, the Government promised to "single out" disabled people for special help. Yet all of us, on both sides of the House, know from our mail bags and from our meetings with disabled people that many of them complain today of being "singled out" for special hardship.
My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West referred to new subsection (7), which meets some of the concern that has been expressed by the British Deaf Association. In determining both the need for communication assistance and the nature of that assistance, the local authority must have regard to the views expressed by the disabled person or his or her representative. I am extremely glad that there has been some, even if still an inadequate, response to the very important representations made to all hon. Members by the British Deaf Association.
I turn to clause 4, which is about services under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. This clause, inserted in the other place, confirms the right of a disabled person to an assessment of his need for any of the services listed in section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is now anticipating matters that are set down for debate later on. He will note that amendments Nos. 34, 35 and so on deal with clause 4, but we have not yet reached them.

Mr. Morris: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My purpose was to respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West, who told the House of a letter that was written to a disabled person by a chief executive, in which he said that there was no duty to assess. My hon. Friend was right to emphasise his deep concern about that letter. There is a duty to assess, and clause 4 puts the matter beyond doubt. It also confirms the right of a carer to ask for an assessment of a disabled person for whom he is caring, which goes some way towards restoring the essence of the original clause 5, which the Government insisted upon deleting on Report in this House.
I hope that the Minister will respond to the point made by my hon. Friend and that he will return to the vital questions of implementation and resources.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has very clearly and helpfully set out the purpose of the various provisions that we are discussing and I shall not attempt to go over the same ground. As he made clear, a written statement can now be requested, whether or not the disabled person made representations before the assessment was made, and subsequent representations can now be made if the local authority has indicated that it is prepared to meet some but not all of the needs which the disabled person himself or herself has identified.
I shall take note of what the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) said in one of his engaging and frequent interventions during our proceedings this morning about amendment No. 14. However, if he studies the affects of amendments Nos. 11 to 18 he will see that representation rights, far from being reduced, as he half implied in his remarks, have been extended by the work that has been undertaken in another place in the cooperative spirit that has pervaded most of our proceedings. I am sure that every right hon. and hon. Member will welcome that.
I welcome in particular the amendment that, as has been acknowledged, has been made largely in response to representations by the British Deaf Association not least because, as the Scottish or near-Scottish hon. Member who is present in the Chamber will be interested to hear. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) recently made a substantial expedition to Rothesay on the Isle of Bute for two hours on one morning to address the triennial congress of the British Deaf Association. I am well aware of the importance that it attaches to some of these provisions and to improving the rights of disabled people generally. It is good that we have been able to respond to its interests and representations. That provision requires local authorities, when considering whether interpretation services are required, to have regard to the views of the disabled person on the need for such services and, if considered appropriate, what they should be.
I apologise for having commented in the absence of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar on his first point, but the other point that he raised with me related to the reason for the drafting of amendment No. 11 in that particular way. I have been advised to say that—

Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Gentleman does not believe it, does he?

Mr. Newton: I do not think that I am qualified to comment on the draftsman's choice of words. What is apparent, though, is that neither I nor my officials have the faintest notion of why the draftsman chose to draft the amendment in that way. I shall not, therefore, attempt to go further, other than to say that, so far as I can see, it does not damage anyone's interests. It may improve the interests of lawyers by making the legislation slightly more complex than otherwise it would have been. I shall draw the attention of the draftsman to the hon. Gentleman's observations. May I pay a small, informal tribute to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar for the remarkable skill with which he focuses his mind on some of these points, at what I take to be reasonably short notice, and then comes out with some remarkably good points.
On the implementation of clause 2, as the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar expected, I have to repeat what I said about clause 1. There will be substantial resource costs for local authorities. I resist the suggestion that the Government's approach is in any sense hollow. I hope that I carry those Opposition Members who are concerned with the Bill with me on the proposition that, throughout, the Government have made it clear that their co-operation with the Bill necessarily rested on the need for commencement orders which the Government would have to consider in the light of when resources could be made available. There has been no deception or disingenuousness about that approach throughout the Bill. The Government have proceeded on that basis.
The right hon. Member for Manchester Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) referred to the basis on which local authorities made their estimates. Whatever else may lie between us, we clearly need to have a fairly good estimate of the likely costs before deciding when to make commencement orders. I shall not speculate whether the right hon. Gentleman is right in his virtually explicit suggestion that local authorities have exaggerated the costs of the clause. However, it would be helpful to refine those estimates and reach ones that he would be prepared to accept as more realistic and we regard as reliable. We must have a reasonably reliable estimate before we can decide whether to bring the clause into effect.
I hope that I made it clear earlier that I shall, with best endeavour, attempt to ensure that we reach that stage as soon as possible. The right hon. Gentleman cannot seriously expect me to discuss the nature of any exchanges within central Government that might underlie that process.
I am pleased to say that I can be more forthcoming about the new clause. It puts beyond doubt that local authorities have a duty to consider the need of the disabled for services under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, if so requested by the disabled person, his representative or his carer. Some concern has been expressed that the current law is not entirely unambiguous. We were pleased to co-operate with the Bill's sponsors in drafting the new clause to put the matter beyond doubt. We intend to bring the provision into effect at the earliest convenient opportunity. I understand that local authorities may, unless there is good reason, find it convenient for those parts of the Bill that can be


implemented soon to be brought into effect together at the beginning of the next financial year. We shall aim at a date of 1 April, 1987, which is what the sponsors want.
Clause 5, which relates to carers, was discussed at length on Report. I undertook to consider whether its intention could be clarified by changes in the drafting. After careful consideration we decided that the suggested changes would substantially widen the effects of the clause. I understand that the Bill's sponsors accept that the wording should remain substantially unchanged. However, I note the helpful comment of the hon. Member for Monklands, West, who said that he thought that he was getting three and three quarters out of the five that he wanted.
Following the commitment given by my right hon. Friend on Report, an amendment has been tabled to ensure that interpretation services are provided if carers are unable to communicate because of disability and the local authority needs to communicate with them to determine whether they can continue to provide care. I hope that it will be possible to implement that clause not later than April 1987, in line with the sponsors' request.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West asked about clarifying the general purpose of clause 5. The aim is not to encourage residential care, but to help people who so wish to stay in their own homes, if that is the best solution to their problems. I emphasise that the overall objective of this clause, together with all provisions relating to services for the disabled, is to ensure that we find the best answer to the problems of the individual. Although we all accept that more often than at present people should stay in their own homes, that cannot always be the case. The Bill cannot eliminate the need for residential care, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was not implying that the disabled should be kept in their own homes regardless of considerations that might mean that they should be in residential care. The general thrust is to improve the opportunities and services for people to stay in their own homes if that is what they want, so there is no difference of opinion between us on that.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe strayed into the somewhat more contentious area of alleged cuts in social security and the position of the disabled. I simply do not accept what he said, but I shall not spend much time on that argument. Far from there having been cuts, the social security budget has risen substantially in real terms, as has the overall value of benefits paid to the disabled for a variety of reasons, including the increased numbers of disabled people receiving benefits, the real value of which have increased. The Government have made a number of significant improvements, not least in the real value of mobility allowance, by removing the invalidity trap that affected many people on supplementary benefits, by introducing the severe disablement allowance and by extending the invalid care allowance. Therefore, although I do not wish to turn the debate into an argument about Government policy, I felt that I had to explain why I simply could not accept what the right hon. Gentleman said.
I welcome and endorse the Lords amendments and hope that the House will approve them.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

Clause 3

PERSONS LEAVING SPECIAL EDUCATION

Lords amendment: No. 25, in page 6, line 27, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
(3) Where an opinion has in pursuance of subsection (1) or (2) been given in the case of a child that he is a disabled person and it subsequently appears to the responsible authority—

(a) that the child will cease to receive full-time education at school on a particular date and will not subsequently be receiving full-time education at a further education establishment, or
(b) that the child will cease to receive full-time education at such an establishment on a particular date,

and (in either case) that he will be under the age of 19 on the relevant date, the authority shall give to the appropriate officer written notification for the purposes of subsection (4) of the date referred to in paragraph (a) or (b); and any such notification shall be given not later than the relevant date and not earlier than four months before that date.
In this subsection "the relevant date" means the date falling 8 months before the date referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) above.
(3A) If at any time it appears to a local education authority—

(a) that a person has on a particular date ceased to receive full-time education as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b)of subsection (3) or will cease to do so on a particular date falling less than 8 months after that time, and
(b) that no notification of that date has been given to the appropriate officer under that subsection with respect to that person, but
(c) that, had that or any other authority (as the responsible authority for the time being) been aware of his intentions 8 months or more before that date, they would have been required to give notification of that date under that subsection with respect to him,

that authority shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable, give to the appropriate officer written notification for the purposes of subsection (4) of that date.
(4) When the appropriate officer receives a notification given with respect to any person under subsection (3) or (3A), he shall (subject to subsections (4A) and (4B)) make arrangements for the local authority of which he is an officer to carry out an assessment of the needs of that person with respect to the provision by that authority of any statutory services for that person in accordance with any of the welfare enactments, and any such assessment shall be carried out—

(a) in the case of a notification under subsection (3), not later than the end of the period of 5 months beginning with the date of receipt of the notification, or
(b) in the case of a notification under subsection (3A), before the date specified in the notification, if reasonably practicable, and in any event not later than the end of the period referred to in paragraph (a) above.

(4A) If—

(a) a notification has been given to the appropriate officer with respect to any person under subsection (3) or (3A), but
(b) it subsequently appears to a local education authority that that person will be receiving full-time education (whether at school or at a further education establishment) at a time later than the date specified in the notification,

the authority shall give written notification of the relevant facts to that officer as soon as is reasonably practicable; and on receiving any such notification that officer shall cease to be required under subsection (4) to make arrangements for the assessment of the needs of the person in question (but without prejudice to the operation of that subsection in relation to any further notification given with respect to that person under subsection (3) or (3A)).


(4B) Nothing in subsection (4) shall require the appropriate officer to make arrangements for the assessment of the needs of a person—

(a) if, having attained the age of 16, he has requested that such arrangements should not be made under that subsection, or
(b) if, being under that age, his parent or guardian has made such a request.

(4C) Regulations under paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Education Act 1981 (assessments and statements of special educational needs) may, in relation to the transfer of statements made under section 7 of that Act, make such provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in connection with the preceding provisions of this section.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss the following Lords amendments: No. 26, in page 6, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 on page 7 and insert—
the appropriate officer", in relation to the child or person referred to in the provision of this section in question, means such officer as may be appointed for the purposes of this section by the local authority for the area in which that child or person is for the time being ordinarily resident;
No. 27, in page 7, line 12, leave out "college of further education" and insert "further education establishment".

Mr. Clarke: Although the amendments to this clause are long and complex, they are necessary to give substance to the principle accepted by the House on Report—that there should be a social services assessment before disabled children leave full-time education either at school or a further education establishment.
The notification by LEAs to the social services of the school leaving date must take place not earlier than 12 months after, and not later than eight months before, that date. The social services assessment must be arranged within five months of that notification. Therefore, it should be undertaken at least three months before the young person leaves school, which should give the authorities time to make whatever practical arrangements are necessary.
The great bulk of amendment No. 25 concerns what should happen if it is not possible to give eight months' notice because of a late decision or because a child moves school to another area after the procedures in subsections (1) and (2) have taken place. The same is true of the new clause introduced by amendment No. 33, which requires the local education authority to keep under review the expected school leaving dates of disabled children covered by clause 3 and which, in conjunction with amendment No. 29, specifies that the LEA responsible for a disabled person when he leaves full-time education at school shall remain responsible during his time in further education.
It is fair to say that further education is still a very grey area, especially for disabled people. Further education was omitted from the 1981 Act, partly on the understanding that a review of the legal basis of further education was in progress. That review has apparently evaporated, and the hole identified by the Warnock report is still there. The new clause, however, gives me hope that the DES is beginning to look favourably on maintaining statements of disabled children during further education. Indeed, it is the obvious logical next step.
Only two items have been lost in the transformation of this clause, and I should like to mention them. In the original Bill, the notification could take place only with the consent of the parent or disabled person. Subsection (4B) now allows only the parent or young person to decline the subsequent assessment—the previous notification will be automatic. I hope that LEAs will be encouraged to give parents or the disabled student full information about the Bill's requirements at that earlier stage.
The second loss—I understand for legal reasons—is that students who are over 19 on the date eight months before they are due to leave are excluded from the Bill. I believe that the guidance to LEAs and social services departments should ask them to be included, albeit on a non-statutory basis. I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on this.
I should like to thank the Minister and his officials for their hard work on the complex drafting of this clause. I hope that he will answer any detailed questions on the wording. On implementation, which is also crucial here, it seems to me that, as the whole clause depends on the formal opinion as to whether the child is disabled given by the social services under subsection (1) or (2) soon after his 14th birthday, it is absolutely essential for the clause to be brought into force immediately so that the whole process can begin.
I remind the House that the purpose of subsection (1) was simply to exclude non-disabled children from the later procedures—in most cases it will be obvious to everyone that a child is disabled. I hope, therefore, that severely disabled children now over 14 who may never fall within subsection (1) will not necessarily be excluded from the benefits of notification and assessment. I should have thought that LEAs could be encouraged to operate notification of obviously disabled children and young people informally this autumn, and social services departments could be asked to make assessments before they leave school or college next summer. I shall listen to the Minister with great interest and care.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Although clause 5 has more than doubled in length, the effect of the changes is minor, which will perhaps remind the House of one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). I agree with the Minister's tribute to my hon. Friend. We have had a virtuoso performance from him today.
One slight disappointment that I have is that, for legal reasons, under subsection (3), the clause will apply only to disabled people who are under 19 on the day eight months prior to their presumed leaving date. The Department of Education and Science has informally promised to advise local education authorities to apply the same procedures for people just over 19, and the DHSS has promised to do the same for social services departments whose duties under subsection (4) apply only to those formally notified under subsection (3). It would be helpful if that commitment were to be stated in the House today. I hope that the Minister will do so when he replies.

Mr. Newton: As the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) explained, the amendments to this part of the Bill, although a further formidable compliment to the powers of the draftsman, basically tidy up the Bill. The most significant change has been to reduce the advance


notification of the expected school leaving date for a disabled child or young person from nine months to eight months.
Many tributes have been paid this morning and perhaps I might add another—to the Department of Education and Science officials who have also worked hard, especially in respect of this part of the Bill. They have undoubtedly contributed to it. The hon. Gentleman referred to the position of disabled young people who remain in full-time education after the age of 19. Formally, clause 3 covers only disabled people in full-time education under the age of 19 on the date that notification is due. However, if they become 19 during the notice period it will not affect the duty of the appropriate officer to make the necessary assessments under the welfare enactments. The reason for that restriction is because full-time schooling under the Education Act 1944 and the making of statements for those at school under the Education Act 1981 is geared to the maximum age of 19 years. It is necessarily within those constraints that the amendments have been drafted.
12.45 pm
However, the Government have no wish to deprive disabled young people who stay on in full-time education after the age of 19 of rights which they would have enjoyed had they decided to leave full-time education at 19. We shall make that clear in guidance to local education authorities and social services departments. I hope that that is a helpful assurance to the House.
I turn to the now hallowed issue of implementation. If possible, we should like to bring the provisions into effect in time to benefit disabled young people leaving full-time education in the summer of 1987, that is by the autumn of this year. We shall be consulting urgently with local authority associations about achieving that. It has been pointed out that children leaving school next summer could not in any case fall within the scope of clause 3(1)(a), which requires an opinion as to whether a child is disabled to be recorded at the first annual review of the statement by the local education authority after his 14th birthday. However, we shall consider with the local authority associations whether any administrative way can be found of enabling children who have already at the time the clause comes into effect had this review to benefit from the notification and assessment provisions provided for in the later parts of the clause. I hope that the House will find that assurance helpful.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West asked about the duty of local education authorities to give parents and young people full information about assessments. I am happy to give him an assurance that we shall aim to cover the point that local education authorities should be encouraged to give full information about assessments to both parents and young people in the guidance which we hope to issue. I hope that that will all be of help to the House and that it will accede to the motion to accept the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 4

PERSONS DISCHARGED FROM HOSPITAL

Lords amendment: No. 34, in page 7, line 25, leave out "a".

Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following Lords amendments:
No. 35, in page 7, line 27, leave out from "discharged" to end of line 35 and insert—
the managers of the hospital shall give written notification of that date—

(a) to the health authority in whose district or area it appears to the managers that that person is likely to reside after his discharge (unless the managers are that authority),


(aa) to the local authority in whose area it appears to them that that person is likely then to reside, and
No. 36, in page 7, line 36, leave out—
where that person will be
and insert—
in the case of a person".
No. 37, in page 7, line 36, leave out "the age of 19" and insert "the relevant age".
No. 38, in page 7, line 37, after "date," insert "to".
No. 39, in page 7, line 37, at end insert—
as soon as is reasonably practicable after that date is known to the managers.
No. 40, in page 7, line 42, at end insert—
the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland or by".
No. 41, in page 8, line 2, leave out "in a hospital".
No. 42, in page 8, line 5, leave out from beginning to "subsection" in line 7 and insert—
the managers of the hospital shall give written notification of that person's discharge in accordance with paragraphs (a), (aa) and (b) of".
No. 43, in page 8, line 8, at end insert—
(2A) Where—

(a) a health authority receive a notification given with respect to a person under subsection (1) or (2), or
(b) the managers of a hospital from which a person is to be, or is, discharged as mentioned in subsection (1) or (2) are the health authority referred to in subsection (1)(a),

that authority shall (subject to subsection (3)) make arrangements for an assessment of the needs of that person with respect to the provision of any services under the 1977 Act or 1978 Act which the Secretary of State is under a duty to provide; and in making any such arrangements a health authority falling within paragraph (a) above shall consult the managers of the hospital in question.
(2B) Where a local authority receive a notification given with respect to a person under subsection (1) or (2), the authority shall (subject to subsection (3)) make arrangements for an assessment of the needs of that person with respect to the provision of any services under any of the welfare enactments.
(2C) A health authority and a local authority who are by virtue of subsections (2A) and (2B) each required to make arrangements for an assessment of the needs of a particular person shall co-operate with each other in the making of those arrangements.
(2D) Any assessment for which arrangements are required to be made by virtue of subsection (2A) or (2B) shall be carried out—

(a) where the notification in question was given under subsection (1), not later than the date mentioned in that subsection, or
(b) where the notification in question was given under subsection (2), as soon as is reasonably practicable after receipt of the notification."

No. 44 in page 8, line 9, leave out subsection (3) and insert—


(3) A health authority or a local authority shall not be required to make arrangements for an assessment of the needs of a person by virtue of subsection (2A) or (2B) if that person has requested them not to make any such arrangements.
(3A) Nothing in this section shall apply in relation to a person who is being discharged from a hospital for the purpose of being transferred to another hospital in which he will be an in-patient (whether or not he will be receiving medical treatment for mental disorder); but any reference in subsection (1) or (2) to a person's having received medical treatment for mental disorder as an in-patient for the period mentioned in that subsection is a reference to his having received such treatment for that period as an in-patient in one or more hospitals (any interruption of that period attributable to his being transferred between hospials being disregarded).
No. 45, in page 8, line 16, leave out "is" and insert "are".
No. 46, in page 8, line 16, after "authority" insert "or, in Scotland an education authority".
No. 47, in page 8, line 17, leave out "its" and insert "their".
No. 48, in page 8, line 18, after "authority" insert "or (as the case may be) education authority".
No. 49, in page 8, line 20, after "where" insert ", in England and Wales,"
No. 50, in page 8, line 20, leave out "is" and insert "are"
No. 51, in page 8, line 22, at end insert—
health authority"—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, means a District Health Authority, and
(b) in realation to Scotland, means a Health Board;"

No. 52, in page 8, leave out lines 23 to 33.
No. 53, in page 9, line 3, leave out
within the meaning of the 1978 Act
No. 54, in page 9, line 19, at end insert
and "the relevant age"—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, means the age of 19; and
(b) in relation to Scotland, means the age of 18"

No. 55, in page 9, leave out lines 20 to 23.

Mr. Clarke: Clause 4 has perhaps seen more changes of substance, as opposed to drafting, than any other clause in the Bill, so I shall spend rather more time explaining individual amendments than I have on other clauses. I should first, however, like to remind the House of the changes to the clause during its passage through this House. In the original Bill the requirement was for hospital managers to inform the social services 28 days before anyone was discharged who had
been receiving medical treatment for mental disorder as an in-patient for a period of, or periods totalling not less than, six months in the preceding twelve months.
The social services were then required to make assessment of their needs within 28 days.
On Report the Government produced a clause which simply required notification of discharge by hosptial to social services — a procedure described by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities as a waste of paper. I had already reluctantly agreed to drop the totalling of short periods and tabled a new clause which required hospital managers to arrange an assessment before a person was discharged. It had been agreed in discussions with the associations that the initiative should be taken by the hospital. My new clause was accepted by the Government and the House.
As the Minister for Health said, there were certain illogical aspects in the drafting, although the purpose was clear. In particular, the clause as it stood required the

hospitals to arrange an assessment of a person's social services needs, but there was no duty on the social services to co-operate.
It would, perhaps, have been easy for the Minister to have taken a minimalist approach; but I am delighted to say he did not do so. Encouraged by the associations—the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the National Association of Health Authorities — who clearly wanted an effective clause, agreement was reached on the amendments which we are considering.
Amendments Nos. 34, 35, 38 and 39 require the hospital managers to send written notification of the date of discharge to the local authority of the area in which the patient is to live and also to the district health authority and the local education authority if the patient is under 19. I should say in explanation that in most cases the "hospital managers" will be a district health authority and there are exclusions throughout the clause to prevent them informing themselves or consulting themselves if the same DHA will continue to be responsible for the patient.
Following notification, amendment No. 43 ensures that each authority will be required to take action as follows. Under subsection (2A) the district health authority must assess the patient's need for services under the National Health Service Act 1977 in consultation with the hospital managers. Under subsection (2B) the social services department must assess the need for services under the "welfare enactments" and, of course, in this case clause 2 will also apply.
Subsection (2C) also places the additional duty on each of these authorities to co-operate with one another in making the arrangements for assessments. In many cases authorities may wish to undertake joint assessments; but it was not felt right to tie their hands in primary legislation and tie the practical arrangements to a precise formula which may not be credible or operable in all circumstances.
Subsection (2D) requires both these assessments to be undertaken before the discharge, or as soon as possible after discharge, following the order of a mental health review tribunal or, in Scotland, the Mental Welfare Commission or the sheriff. Where a discharge is properly planned there should be no fear of it being held up by this clause. As the Mental Health Act Commission asserted in its first biennial report in 1985:
Discharge should be a process, not an event.
Where the temptation might be to make an overnight decision to discharge someone, the clause will ensure adequate planning for that person. In any event, subsection (3) in amendment No. 44 allows patients to waive their right to an assessment.
The duty on the local education authority is not so clear. I understand that if the patient is under 16 the procedures under the Education Act 1981 will apply. The LEA will either initiate an assessment of the child's special educational needs or amend an existing statement. What will happen if the patient is over 16 but under 19 is less clear, but perhaps the Minister can clarify this in his speech.
Subsection (3A) in amendment No. 44 is a technical amendment to stop assessments being triggered by transfers between hospitals and also to confirm that time spent in different hospitals will be added together for the purpose of the six months mentioned in subsection (1).
The remainder of the amendments are either technical or are necessary for the application of the clause to Scotland.
The clause introduces significant new duties to make assessments and in view of the dearth of provisions for people who are mentally ill in many parts of the country there will — rightly—be a knock-on effect on services and some authorities will need to incur substantial expenditure. Nevertheless, I am sceptical about some of the estimates that I have seen which seem to involve building new mini-institutions for people with mental illness. I say again in connection with this clause that there will be dismay around the country if excuses are made for delaying its implementation, since the principle has now been accepted.
Assessment is fundamental to the successful discharge of long-stay patients into the community. The clause is needed immediately; indeed, it is long overdue.

Mr. Alfred Morris: We owe a special debt of gratitude to another place for its work on this part of the Bill. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) will join me in that tribute.
We are dealing with an extremely important provision. If there is a failure properly to assess a disabled person leaving hospital, he or she is all too likely to end up back in hospital rather than in the community. I know that the Minister will appreciate the importance of this part of the Bill and will do all that he can to ensure its implementation at the earliest possible date.
There has been repeated emphasis on the two vexed issues of implementation and resources. We shall return time and again to those issues to make absolutely certain that this extremely important Bill is implemented fully at the earliest possible date.

Mr. Newton: As the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has explained, following our extensive debate on the clause on Report, another place has helped us to get the provisions into what is generally accepted to be a satisfactory form. I am particularly grateful for the hon. Gentleman's warm acknowledgement of the fact that we have all sought to get the provisions into an acceptable form and have not adopted what he calls a minimalist approach. I should certainly not wish to see such an approach.
Health authorities and social services departments are to be required to make arrangements for an assessment of the needs of a disabled person for their respective services. When they receive notification that a long-stay patient is to be discharged, the authorities and departments will be required to co-operate with each other in making the arrangements.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West asked about the duties of local education authorities if they are notified under clause 4(1)(b) of the discharge from hospital of a child or a young person aged under 19. The general purpose of the subsection is to ensure that local education authorities are in a position to discharge their responsibilities either under the Education Act 1981 or clause 3 of the Bill.
The hon. Member rightly said that in the case of a child who is at school the local education authority will be required to consider whether amendments are needed to the terms of any existing statement of special educational

needs or, if no such statement exists, to consider whether the child's education needs should be assessed with a view to making a statement.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to say a little more about those over school leaving age. In the case of a child over 16 who is already subject to a statement and transfers to a full-time course of further education, the local education authority is no longer obliged under the Education Act to maintain the statement, but it will be under a duty, under clause 3, to inform the social services department in due course of the child's leaving date.
In the comparatively rare cases of children who are subject neither to the Education Act 1981 nor to clause 3—children who are not, or have not been, subject to a statement and who either transfer to further education or cease full-time education — it will be for the social services department, under clause 4, to assess their needs.
I know that this is a slightly complex issue, but I hope that my explanation will help hon. Members and those outside the House who are following our proceedings carefully.
Predictably and understandably — I make no complaint about it—the hon. Member for Monklands, West and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) returned again to the implementation of an important clause which I am pleased to see in the Bill.
1 pm
On Report, the hon. Member for Monklands, West said that he was prepared for the implementation of this clause to be delayed slightly longer than other clauses in the Bill—although I realise that he would not expect that to be a long time — in order to allow adequate preparation. He said that he hoped that the target date would be set no later than 1988–89. 1 regret that, once again, I must be a little less forthcoming than I have been on one or two other clauses that we have discussed recently. As always, we are once again back in an area where resources are an important factor.
As yet, we have not come to a common view with the local authority and health authority associations on how, if at all, changes introduced to the Bill on Report, as subsequently refined in another place, will affect the overall costings. In other words, there is still a good deal of uncertainty about costings in this area and it inescapably follows from that that it is impossible for me to make any useful comments at this precise point in time about when the clause will be implemented.
However, we shall continue discussions to try to make sure that we obtain the best and most reliable estimates of what is involved as soon as possible. Then, as I have already said, we shall be looking for ways forward to achieve the speediest possible implementation, subject always to the availability of the money—in other words, finding the resources to make sure that local authorities and health authorities have them.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister talked of the Bill costing an estimated £100 million. He talks about costs; we talk about net costs. Clearly, there will be savings on this part of the Bill if the right action is taken at the right time. If a person leaving hospital is not properly assessed, he or she is likely to return to hospital at far greater cost to the taxpayer than if adequate help is provided in the


community. Can we be assured that full consideration will be given to the savings that will accrue if disabled people are given the right help in the right place at the right time?

Mr. Newton: The right hon. Gentleman makes an entirely legitimate point about the potential savings that might arise from some forms of expenditure under the clause. But, in doing so, he will, as I hope he will acknowledge, have to bear in mind some of the difficulties in achieving a good estimate of the cost of such provisions. Making estimates of the kind which he implies are required is a difficult and complex matter. I cannot add to what I have said. The Government are approaching the matter in the spirit of wishing to make progress as soon as possible, but I am unable to give a precise implementation date at this stage. We shall do what we can to get into a position to make a better assessment of the costs as soon as possible, which, in turn, will enable us to make a better assessment of when we may be able to make a commencement order.

Mr. Wigley: May I press the Minister a little on this because it is obviously important? I do not want any delay in the introduction of the clause to be a reason for not pressing ahead with the integration of people from long-stay hospitals into the community. There may be some who believe that it would be preferable to wait until better safeguards are available but that would be detrimental. The Under-Secretary of State wrote to me last month telling me that the average cost in England for a stay in hospital for mentally handicapped people is £227 a week and for mentally ill people, £255 a week. That shows the fairly considerable costs that there are and I should have thought that, following what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) said a few moments ago about achieving a balance between the figures, we should try to make rapid progress in this matter.

Mr. Newton: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying and I can assure him that the Government are not looking for ways to diminish progress towards care in the community in the sense that he is talking about. Indeed, I think that it is fair to claim that that has advanced rapidly under the Government, especially in relation to those who were formerly in long-stay hospitals for the mentally handicapped, and, not least, in respect of children in such hospitals, where the drop in numbers has been dramatic during the past few years. We are all anxious to see that momentum sustained.
One of the other complicating factors is that much of this assessment work already goes on. It is not the practice suddenly to decant children, or indeed adults, from long-stay hospitals for the mentally handicapped without taking a look at what their needs will be in the community, and making provision for them.
Thus it is quite a complex business to assess what additional resources will be involved in implementing the clause. However, we shall be doing so as soon, and as effectively as possible. But I think that the hon. Member for Monklands, West will recognise that the task is complex. We shall not drag our feet, but I am not in a position to be more specific today.

Questions put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to [one with Special Entry.]

Clause 9

AMENDMENT OF SECTION 29(2) OF THE CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS ACT 1970

Lords amendment: No. 64, in page 11, line 3, leave out
Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
and insert "1970 Act".

Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following Lords amendments:
No. 65, in page 11, line 10, after "persons" insert ", or"
No. 66, in page 11, line 12, leave out
under section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968
and insert
to whom section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968applies".
No. 67, in page 11, line 14, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
(2) In section 2 of the 1968 Act (social work committees and functions referred to them) in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) after the word "Act" there shall be inserted the words "as read with sections 1 and 2(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986".
(3) The foregoing provisions of this section extend to Scotland only.".
No. 68, after clause 9, insert the following new clause

Persons leaving special education: Scotland—
9A. — (1) Before an education authority make a report under section 65B(1) of the 1980 Act on a child they shall require the appropriate authority to give an opinion as to whether or not the child is a disabled person.
(2) Where the appropriate authority have given an opinion that the child is a disabled person, the education authority shall make a note of this opinion in the Record kept under section 60(2) of the 1980 Act and in the report made under section 65B(1) of that Act.
(3) Where an education authority—

(a) intend to record a child or young person under section 60(2) of the 1980 Act (recording of children with special educational needs) after the period mentioned in section 65B(2) of that Act; or
(b) after making a report under the said section 65B(1) on a child or young person who was not at the time of the report a disabled person, become aware of a significant change in the mental or physical condition of the child or young person giving them reason to believe that he may now be a disabled person.

they shall before opening the Record or, as the case may be, on becoming aware of the change, require the appropriate authority to give an opinion as to whether or not the child or young person is a disabled person and if the appropriate authority give an opinion that he is, this opinion shall be recorded in the Record and (where applicable) the report.
(4) Where the appropriate authority have given an opinion that a child or young person is a disabled person it shall be the duty of that authority to make an assessment of the needs of that child or young person with respect to the provision by the authority of any statutory services for that person in accordance with the welfare enactments, and for that assessment to be carried out—

(a) in the case of a child in relation to whom a report is made under section 65B(1) of the 1980 Act, within the period mentioned in section 65B(2) of that Act; and
(b) in the case of a child or young person who is considered to be disabled under subsection (3) above, as soon as is reasonably practicable (but, in any event, not later than 6 months from the time the appropriate authority was asked for an opinion as to whether or not the child or young person was a disabled person),

and to make a report thereon.


(5) Where the appropriate authority have given an opinion that a child or young person is a disabled person and it subsequently appears to the education authority—

(a) that the child or young person will cease to receive full-time education at school at a particular date and will not subsequently be receiving full-time education at a further education establishment; or
(b) that the child or young person will cease to receive full-time education at such an establishment on a particular date,

the education authority shall, not later than 6 months before that date, record the date in the report or (if no report has been made) give written notification of the date to the appropriate authority.
(6) If at any time it appears to the education authority—

(a) that a child or young person who has been recorded as being disabled has ceased to receive full-time education; and
(b) the authority did not at the appropriate time—

(i) record that date in the report made under section 65B of the 1980 Act; or (as the case may be)
(ii) give notification to the appropriate authority; and

(c) a copy of the report has not been sent to the bodies mentioned in section 65B(6) of the said Act,

they shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable, record the date in the report and send a copy of the report to the appropriate authority or (if no report has been made) give written notification of the date to the appropriate authority.
(7) The education authority and the appropriate authority shall keep under consideration the cases of all children and young persons on whom a report has been made under section 65B of the 1980 Act or, as the case may be, under subsection (4) and shall at such times as they consider appropriate review the information contained in the report.
(8) Nothing in subsection (4) shall require the appropriate authority to make an assessment of the needs of a child or young person—

(a) if having attained the age of 16, he has requested that such an assessment should not be made under that subsection; or
(b) if, being under that age or unable to make such a request by reason of any mental or physical incapacity, his parent has made such a request.

(9) In this section "appropriate authority" means the local authority for the purposes of the 1968 Act falling to perform functions in relation to the child or young person; and expressions used in the 1980 Act have the same meaning in this section as in that Act.
(10) The foregoing provisions of this section extend to Scotland only.".
No. 69, in clause 10, page 11, line 15, leave out "Education (Scotland) Act 1980" and insert "1980 Act".
No. 70, in clause 10, page 12, line 26, after "persons" insert "— (a)".
No. 71, in clause 10, page 12, line 30, at end insert—
"(b) in subsection (2) before paragraph (a) there shall be inserted—
(aa) a decision of an education authority not to record the young person or, following a review under section 65A of this Act, not to continue to record him;";".
No. 72, in clause 10, page 12, line 32, after "paragraph(a)" insert — (a)".
No. 73, in clause 10, page 12, line 33, at end insert—
"(b) for the words "(2)(a)" substitute "(2)(aa) or (a)".
No. 74, in clause 11, page 12, line 36, leave out from beginning to "of" in line 38 and insert—
In relation to disabled persons the duty under section 13 of the 1978 Act".
No. 75, in clause 11, page 13, line 6, at end insert—
(2) The foregoing provisions of this section extend to Scotland only.

Mr. Clarke: We now come to the Scottish part of the Bill, and I am happy to say that most of the amendments

are technical. Perhaps I should say that I have reached the "exclusively" Scottish part, as all the Bill applies to Scotland except clause 3, whose Scottish equivalent is the new clause represented by amendment No. 68. Its construction is significantly different from the English clause, because of the very different and, dare I say better, construction of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which seems to bridge the gap between school and further education that I mentioned in relation to clause 3.
The establishment of a Future needs assessment has already been represented as a method of improving the lot of youngsters before they leave school, in that it offers an opportunity for all involved with the child's education to consider progress to date and to plan for the future. Yet in many parts of the country, including in my constituency, improvement has not been effective because the agency that must take responsibility for helping the young person in the next stage of his life, the social work department, has not been involved.
The new clause will avoid that break in the link and will provide an opportunity for improving the considerable progress that has been made over the past few years. If any right hon. and hon. Members have detailed questions to ask about the new clause, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will no doubt be delighted to reply.
Hon. Members will recall that on Report a clause relating to joint planning in Scotland was deleted after the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay), promised to arrange for the introduction of a clause in the other place to provided reserve powers to put joint planning in Scotland on a statutory basis. He wished, as we all did, to include the elderly. But the powers that be have decreed that it is impossible to make the necessary amendment to the long title.
Consequently, Lord Skelmersdale repeated a committment given to me privately that the Government would introduce the amendment to the National Health Service (Amendment) Bill. I find that arrangement entirely satisfactory. My aim is to see the legislation that we all want on the statute book and in force, and not to pack all and sundry into this Bill in order to boost the status of the so-called Tom Clarke Bill. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that view.
Although I should like to place on record my appreciation for the Government's action on this matter, I must at the same time express some reservations. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will convey them to his hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security. My reservations reflect the concerns expressed to me by the care in the community working party, which brings together a wide range of voluntary and professional organisations in Scotland. It is concerned that the Scottish Office has not been able to produce the relevant clauses for discussion. Its attitude has been in sharp contrast to that of its English colleagues, who have devoted time to consulting my advisers on the most effective means of improving the legislation.
I hope that the time scale for the implementation of the Bill in Scotland will be similar to that, or perhaps shorter than it is in other parts of the United Kingdom. At an earlier stage, I wondered whether the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland — the hon. Member for Argyle and Bute—and the Minister for Health were Mr. Nice and Mr. Nasty. I hope that they will prove themselves to be


Mr. Quick and Mr. Speedy and that the Minister for Social Security will show the same urgency in implementing the Bill. They may be sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and 1 and many other hon. Members on both sides of the House will pounce on any signs of lethargy or lack of application.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has explained the reasons for these amendments with his customary excellence and clarity.
I emphasise that the Government share the concern of the Bill's sponsors that effective joint planning arrangements should operate in Scotland and that voluntary organisations are brought into the process, because they have their proposals to contribute.
The hon. Member referred to specific provisions and the reasons why no amendment to clause No. 11 had been moved. I confirm that, when a suitably comprehensive clause is included in the National Health Service (Amendment) Bill, a motion to delete clause 11 will be tabled.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about commencement. I confirm that it is likely that the Government will wish the various provisions of the Bill to commence simultaneously throughout the country. However, we must recognise that commencement will depend in practice on a number of factors, including the availability of resources. That point was made clear during proceedings in the House and in another place. I can fully assure the House, however, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has every intention of implementing the Bill as quickly as that can be done in the circumstances prevailing at the time and in the light of consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. However, the resources available may be subject to different pressures and priorities north and south of the border. A facility for separate commencement is therefore clearly necessary.
I add my congratulations to those of other right hon. and hon. Members to the hon. Member for Monklands, West.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. [one with Special Entry.]

Clause 12

INTERPRETATION

Lords amendment: No. 76, in page 13, line 18, at end insert—
"the 1980 Act" means the Education (Scotland) Act 1980;".

Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Lords amendments: No. 77, in page 13, line 23, leave out "1(5)" and insert

(Appointment of authorised representatives of disabled persons) (1)".
No. 78, in page 13, line 32, at end insert—
guardian" (except in section (Appointment of authorised representatives of disabled persons) (6))—


(a) in relation to England and Wales, means a person appointed by deed or will or by order of a court of competent jurisdiction to be the guardian of a child; and
(b) in relation to Scotland, means a person appointed by deed or will or by order of a court of competent jurisdiction to he the tutor, curator or guardian of a child;

"Health Board" means a Health Board within the meaning of the 1978 Act;
hospital"—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, means—

(i) a health service hospital within the meaning of the 1977 Act, or
(ii) any accommodation provided by any person pursuant to arrangements made under section 23(1) of that Act (voluntary organisations and other bodies) and used as a hospital; and

(b) in relation to Scotland, means a health service hospital within the meaning of the 1978 Act;".

No. 79, in page 13, line 41, leave out "sections 1 and 2" and insert
section 1, as read with section 2,".
No. 80, in page 14, line 2, at end insert—
"modifications" includes additions, omissions and amendments;
parent"—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, means, in the case of a child who is illegitimate, his mother, to the exclusion of his father; and
(b) in relation to Scotland, means, in the case of a child whose father is not married to the mother, his mother, to the exclusion of his father;"

No. 81, in page 14, line 3, at end insert—
special hospital" means a special hospital within the meaning of the 1977 Act;
State hospital" means a State hospital within the meaning of the 1984 Act;
statutory services"—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, means services under any arrangements which a local authority are required to make by virtue of any of the welfare enactments, and
(b) in relation to Scotland, means services which a local authority find it necessary to provide themselves or by arrangement with another local authority, or with any voluntary or other body, in connection with the performance of the local authority's functions under the welfare enactments;

voluntary organisation" means a body the activities of which are carried on otherwise than for profit, but does not include any public or local authority;".
No. 82, in page 14, line 10, after "and" insert
sections 7 and 8 of".
No. 83, in clause 14, in page 14, line 17, leave out "made by statutory instrument".
No. 84, in page 14, line 19, at end insert
, and different provision may he made under this subsection for England and Wales and for Scotland".
No. 85, in page 15, line 21, after "and" insert
(except in the case of an order under subsection (2))".

Mr. Clarke: Inevitably, all these amendments are consequential. The definitions in particular have been moved around the Bill and a number of new definitions have been added. As clause 14 concerns both commencement orders and extent, I should like to put on the record my pleasure at the statement in the other place by Baroness Trumpington on behalf of the Government to the effect that consultation on how the Bill might be translated to Northern Ireland will be put in hand if the Bill is enacted. This was much more positive and constructive than earlier ministerial statements. I am


delighted that the Government now accept that the benefits of the Bill should be afforded throughout the United Kingdom to people with disabilities.
As we come to the end of our deliberations may I take the opportunity to thank the ministerial team which has been responsible for the Government's input into the Bill? I would also like to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and my right hon. and hon. Friends for the work that they have done in taking the Bill this far. There has been an enormous amount of commitment, especially on the part of organisations for the disabled and many others. I believe that the strength of support for those organisations led the Government to many of the decisions they have taken in the course of the Bill's passage through both Houses.
1.15pm
We have had a most interesting debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), in the characteristically generous manner we have come to expect from him, predicted that one day I might find myself in heaven. I hope that that will not be too soon because I am not sure that my constituency Labour party would welcome a by-election at this early stage. If that ever happens I am sure that the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar will be there in his rightful place, at the very least as Chairman of the Select Committee on Standing Orders. I do not know whether there is a St. Ladbroke up there but if there is not I am sure that he will deal with that matter as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) gave magnificent help during the progress of the Bill and I know that that is appreciated by everybody on both sides of the House.
We have reached the stage at which I would like to move the amendments before the House. In the spirit of the ministerial statements that we have heard from the Dispatch Box on other causes, may I say that I have no doubt that the discussions in both Houses and outside the Palace of Westminster that have led to this comprehensive view of the problems of disability show that the British people have set a clear priority.
I accept, as I did on Second Reading, that it will be necessary to consider implementation on the basis of phasing. Nevertheless, I believe that in this clause, as in others, the British people and the House will not accept that resources cannot be made available. We believe that even the figure that the Minister has given on several occasions today does not represent something which is extravagant in the extreme.
We believe that disabled persons and their carers, mentally handicapped persons and families up and down the country have experienced serious problems. The Bill attempts to right some of those problems, although not all of them. However, given the commitment on the part of the Government and the House, which has been shown almost unanimously at every stage, recognised and reflected at the Treasury, the Government are compelled to recognise the strong feelings and make sure that resources are made available.

Mr. Newton: I shall respond to the remarks of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) by saying that in my judgment the Government have shown, persistently over six or seven years, their commitment to the needs and interests of disabled people

in a variety of ways, including the improvements and extensions of social security benefits in the way I described a little while ago. We shall continue to do everything we can to ensure that that progress is more than maintained. It is in that spirit and against the background of what we have already been able to achieve that we shall approach the consideration of the implementation of those parts of the Bill with significant effects on resources.
If you will allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, since you inadvertently cut me off without a word on the previous group of amendments and I had some modest news to impart, I should like to impart that good news now. I am talking about clauses 6 to 8. On the matter of timing and implementation, I hope, subject to discussions with local authority associations and other bodies concerned, that it will be possible to bring clauses 6 and 7 into effect no later than April 1987.
Clause 8 deals with reports to Parliament. We shall consider the possibility of bringing the clause into effect this autumn, and making the first annual report on the basis of 1985 data before the end of the year. I hope that the House will find that helpful. We should be able to produce a more informative report when what is known as Körner data—that is improved information about the Health Service—become available, but that will not be until 1988.
Perhaps those undertakings and hopes give some further emphasis to what I said about the Government's commitment to continue the progress of improvements for disabled people in a variety of ways.
I wish to pay my last tribute in these debates to all those who have been connected with our proceedings. I add my words to the kind remarks that have been made about the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), whose performance has been such that I think that he would be well qualified to be a Government Whip, bearing in mind the efficiency that he has shown in organising the proceedings of the House. But perhaps he would regard the prospect of being elevated to the post of Government Whip as a fate worse than death. However, his efforts in organising our proceedings have been of significant assistance to us all. I am grateful to him for what he has done to support the hon. Member for Monklands, West and us all in achieving the happy position in which we find ourselves. We hope that Royal Assent will be only a short time away.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Many who are present congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) at the outset of today's proceedings. I have reserved my congratulations to this final stage so as to be absolutely certain that the Bill is bound for the statute book. This is an extremely important measure and my hon. Friend has been skilful and tireless. He has been wholly superb throughout the proceedings on the Bill.
I hold it to be the bounden duty of the Minister — as a member of a Government who have given over £4·4 billion in tax relief to those earning over £30,000 a year — to press upon his colleagues the point that implementing this Bill must now be a priority of priorities.
Again, I most warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West. He will be thanked by disabled people everywhere for nudging things


forward on their behalf. I hope that we shall be rejoicing very soon about the full implementation of his legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Incest and Related Offences(Scotland) Bill [Lords]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

INCEST AND RELATED OFFENCES

Mr. Bill Walker: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 40, leave out
'under the age of 16 years'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 2, in page 2, line 41, after 'offence', insert
'if that step-child is either under the age of 21 or has at any time before attaining the age of 18 lived in the same household and been treated as a child of his or her family.'.
No. 3, in page 3, line 2, leave out '16' and insert '21'.

Mr. Walker: In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and I voted against the Bill as it stands. That is the reason for the amendments. Due to some confusion, which I have not yet managed to unravel, or a misunderstanding, my name was not printed as a supporter of the amendment along with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling.
This is not a simple matter. To a non-lawyer, it seems to be complex and legal. The Bill, which has not been amended, may improve one area of Scots law. I do not think that anyone would argue with that. However, if the amendments are not accepted, it will bring about what some non-lawyers may believe to be a legal and moral conflict, which in the end will be likely to create greater social and moral problems. This conflict would be created by problems arising from this Bill and the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Act 1986.
If one takes the view that marriage is more than just a legal matter—that it is ordained for the procreation of children, as the marriage service says—how can it be right for our law to allow an act that could result in the procreation of children, but not allow that act to take place within the institution of marriage? That is an impossible position.
I am sympathetic to what the Bill is trying to do, but I find it impossible to support a law that would allow an individual to sleep with his stepdaughter over the age of 16 provided that the stepdaughter gives her consent. She would probably become pregnant in the circumstances that one envisages, but, provided that she gives her consent, it is all right for her to become pregnant and have a child. As the law stands, and if the Bill is passed unamended, she will be the mother of a child, the father of which cannot, in law, become her husband. Surely that is nonsense. It is wrong to ask Parliament to put such a measure into legislation unamended. That is why these amendments are so important.
I recognise, as I am sure that everyone else recognises, that many reforms are required to put right the anomalies in Scottish law. However, is it right for us to write into law that it is in order for a stepfather to sleep with his stepdaughter and produce children, but not legally right for him to marry the 16-year-old, or older, girl? If so, we are saying that fornication and adultery are preferable to marriage.
One-parent families are a growing public concern. No one doubts that this matter is causing concern for those involved in social work and activity, those concerned with the churches and anyone who cares deeply about our society. If the Bill is anamended, it will make a positive contribution towards the creation of more one-parent families. The House cannot approve of that.
More important—and it is to this issue that we must turn our attention—are the children who are likely to result from such a relationship. Does anyone really believe that children conceived in this way would not at least have a real prospect of becoming what is known as problem children—another concern for our modern society? The important aspect is what it does to the children, but another aspect is the attendant cost for the public purse and taxpayer if the situation were to get worse.
Does anyone believe that bastards conceived between a stepfather and a stepdaughter aged 16, 17 or 18 can hope to be anything other than, at best, a curiosity to other children and other members of the community where they live? We all know that children can be very cruel, and often that makes life extremely difficult for sensitive youngsters. We have a duty and responsibility to them to think about the children who may be conceived as a result of the provisions of the Bill. At best, they will be a curiosity to other children and other members of the community in which they live. At school they will be abused and given, I have no doubt, hideous and horrendous names. Does anyone seriously believe that this is a recipe for a happy and stable home life? Does anyone seriously believe that the legal prevention of marriage between father and mother can make any kind of contribution to a stable home life for either the mother or the child.
It is difficult for those of us who have a good home life and who enjoyed a good home life as children to envisage anything like this. If a stepfather finds, after his stepdaughter's mother dies, that his stepdaughter is attractive, although she does not find him attractive, does anybody believe that considerable pressure will not be exerted on the child? I do not have the slightest doubt that incest is committed. I do not know how frequently it is committed and I do not know how large the problem is, but it is reasonable to envisage circumstances in which, because of the conditions in the home, the stepdaughter has to comply with the invitation or the order —depending upon how one views it—to get into bed with the stepfather.
I understand that it is extremely difficult to prove whether or not consent was given, demanded or accepted and that the circumstances become terribly fraught and difficult. However, our duty is to examine the areas of possibility, to find out which of them are likely to be areas of probability and then to reach a decision. Recently a Bill was introduced to prohibit marriage under the age of 21. If this Bill is passed, we shall be saying that provided the 16-year-old stepdaughter has agreed, this is acceptable in law. That would create a huge anomaly. If a stepfather forces a child against her will to get into bed and have intercourse with him, another member of the family has to provide evidence that that has happened. Somebody else is needed to clype—in other words, to tell.
We have to reach a decision against that background. All this happens within the family home, where there is the real danger of abuse. We are considering legislation that is designed to deal with such abuse. As I said earlier, I am not a lawyer; I am not qualified to deal with complex and

difficult legal matters. However, I know that it would be extremely difficult for me to accept that it is all right to have intercourse and to produce children but it is not all right for those children to be given a legal father.
I believe that these amendments are essential. If it were to be left unamended, the Bill would he an affront to the Christian beliefs of the people of Scotland. Does anyone seriously believe that they can defend the Bill unamended? Could anyone attend church in Scotland on a Sunday and defend a position where marriage between a stepfather and stepdaughter is prevented—

Mr. James Wallace: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Bill in its unamended form is substantially the product of a Bill put forward by the Scottish Law Commission, which invited comments from various authorities, including the churches? Only one of the many denominations raised any objection to the Bill. The others welcomed it.

Mr. Walker: I do not argue with that, but the hon. Gentleman must agree that that was before the Act prohibiting such marriage reached the statute book. It is the relationship between and the difficulties and anomalies that arise from those two Acts that present the problems.

Mr. Chris Smith: The hon. Gentleman has the privilege to be the constituency Member of Parliament for my parents. I have considerable sympathy with his point. Can he explain the specific wording of amendment No. 2 which, because of the word "or" in line 2, appears to do rather more than the purpose he has outlined? It could mean that a stepchild of any age—even above 21—who had lived in the same household while under the age of 18 could be caught by the provisions. Will he address himself to that minor but important point?

Mr. Walker: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. The object of the word "or" is to prevent someone saying, "But she is no longer living with us." It is well known in Scotland that one of the most common lines of defence when going before the courts is to say, "I didna ken", to which the judge might reply, "Well, you ken noo." If the hon. Gentleman's parents have the good fortune to live in the beautiful part of the world that I represent, they will well understand that.
I want to know how anybody could go to church on a Sunday and defend a position where marriage between a stepfather and his stepdaughter is prevented by law, although it is perfectly in order — if the Bill is unamended—for them to live together, sleep together and produce children. That question must be answered. I know that I would find it impossible— as, no doubt, would any hon. Member—to persuade the elders of the kirk that somehow that was acceptable.
I do not pretend that we are dealing with a simple matter. We are not. But that is no excuse for putting into law another anomaly, especially one which, in my judgment as a non-lawyer, in practical terms could have an horrendous impact on the children produced from such a liaison. We must think about the road along which we are travelling and where we are going. Those who support: the Bill and reject the amendments will be saying that fornication and adultery are preferable to marriage. In the old days, the minister would stand up in the pulpit and point out the sinners. That practice has long since passed.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: There are too many of them now.

Mr. Walker: I accept that. Who can throw stones? Probably nobody can today. I am concerned about the children who can be produced from such a liaison. Although the minister can no longer stand up in the kirk and point to the sinners, we should not think that the congregation do not look around and comment. We can all imagine them asking, "Have you heard?" The children will be born out of wedlock, but we are saying that that is preferable to their being born in wedlock. That must be unacceptable for anybody who supports the Christian teachings and values of the Scottish Church.
The Scots will not take kindly to being lectured on fine points of law. Many, especially those who go to church, will point to God's law. That law will be in conflict with the Bill if the amendment is not made.

Ms. Jo Richardson: I have two apologies to make. The first is that this is the first time that I have had the temerity to speak in a debate on Scottish law. 1 have to confess that I do not understand Scottish law, although I have heard many hon. and learned Members say on other issues that Scottish law is in many respects simpler than English law. That may not be true here, however. There is, I suppose, good and less good on both sides of the border.
My second apology is that I am not terribly clear of my stance on the amendments. I think that I support the general thrust of the Bill, which seems to be to bring Scottish law into line with English law concerning a stepfather having a relationship with his stepdaughter over the age of 16. I understand that the Bill would make that not an incestuous relationship.
I did not quite follow what the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) was saying about marriage. I am aware that the two are tied up in that there can be issue from a relationship such as we are discussing. He went on at some length about the problems of such children. We are all concerned with them, but the debate is more narrow and concerns only whether a relationship between a stepfather and a stepdaughter over 16 is incestuous. I understand that the amendment would increase the age from 16 to 21. I have mixed feelings about that. I have been forced to be interested because of the increasing and, in many ways, welcome discussion about incest, which until fairly recently has been swept under the carpet. We should all welcome the fact that now both men and women are beginning to discuss these problems, which are particularly difficult for the girl or young woman involved in what amounts to violence against her by a member of her family. I am talking about the normal incestuous relationships about which we hear. It is time that the House, not necessarily this afternoon but on some other occasion, debated the difficulties that face girls and young women who are forced into this type of relationship.
1.45 pm
My ambivalence about the amendments arises from my belief that basically young women at the age of 16 should be able to decide on their own relationships. Generally, I would be unwilling to increase the age limit to 21 except in respect of incestuous relationships between a stepfather and stepdaughter. That must be considered in a different light.
I am sure that hon. Members will have had cases to deal with. I have had several. I do not know whether it is that women feel more able to talk about incest to a woman Member than to a male Member, however sympathetic and receptive he is. Many women of all ages have told me of the pressures on them from their fathers, stepfathers or, in some cases, their elder brothers to develop a relationship. It can start at an early age when the young girl does not know what is happening, is frightened, and knows that something is wrong but does not know what. She is threatened by her father, stepfather or the boyfriend of her mother who may say to her, "You must not say anything about this because your mother would be very angry and it would hurt her." Some of those women have told me that, despite that, they have a curious attachment to that person because of the secret between them. They do not like it. Indeed, they are often ashamed and worried about it. My ambivalence about the amendments arises I am worried whether 16 is the age at which a young woman with such a history of pressure, in this case from her stepfather, can make up her mind whether she has a proper relationship which she wishes to perpetuate into marriage with that man.
At some stage we should clarify the matter in a much better way. A year ago I read a piece in The Sunday Times about the complex legal barriers to marriage. It is time that we faced that and, perhaps, the Bill will lead to our facing it. Certainly it is wrong that a stepfather and stepdaughter, at whatever age, with a genuine relationship, should not be able to get married, if that relationship is properly established. Marriage-enabling legislation is usually considered in the House of Lords. I remember reading about a 62-year-old widower who was allowed to marry his 58-year-old stepdaughter through such legislation. Those people would not be included in the categories covered by this Bill. It is wrong for such cases to be decided at personal expense, because they can be very costly.
The Bill originates because sex between a stepfather and stepdaughter is prohibited by the Incest Act 1567. I am sorry that I am not more of an expert in the subject, but I was interested to hear that the roots of that Act are to be found in the book of Leviticus which describes a husband and wife as being "of one flesh".
It is interesting that we still have on the statute book legislation based on a doctrine which is obviously out of line with English law. In this case I think that English law is best. It seems that the doctrine dates back 2,000 years.
I support the thrust of the Bill, but I have to say something which is not often said in the House of Commons—I honestly do not know what to do about the amendment. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) can help me.

Mr. Chris Smith: I am afraid that I cannot help my hon. Friend in her dilemma. The Scottish Law Revision Committee recommended the amendments which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is proposing. However, the Criminal Law Revision Committee for England and Wales, after initial hesitation and considerable thought, recommended that we should go further than the Scottish Law Revision Committee and adopt the argument presented by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). There is a clear difference between the two law committees. The issues are difficult and sensitive. Arguments exist on both sides. The difficulty has been considered in great detail.

Ms. Richardson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to say that two different conclusions were reached. That gives me strength to say that I still do not know the answer. If they cannot agree, who am I to decide?
If I have to take a view, on balance I think that I am in favour, marginally, of increasing the age to 21, on the ground that incest is such a difficult subject. But I am open to argument. Incest can begin with such violence—that is what worries me—and at such an early age. If such a relationship has gone on for a long time I wonder whether at 16 a young woman—however much she might feel that she is consenting, and no matter what affinity she has with her stepfather—has had a chance to discover her own feelings. However, that applies to marriage rather than to making the relationship incestuous.
We are not suggesting, as the hon. Member for Tayside, North seems to suggest, that everyone over the age of 16 who is affected in this way should marry. We are debating whether the law should say that with young women over the age of 16 the act is incestuous. I think that I am talking myself into remaining where I was on the age of 16.
I apologise for my rather confused remarks, but I am pleased that we have had a brief opportunity to discuss the Bill. I hope that it will lead to a more leisurely and better attended debate — perhaps a thoughtful and philosophical discussion—about incest, on which there has been much research by many bodies.
It is time that the House faced up to the fact that there is considerable violence against young women and children by members of their own families, whether step-relatives or otherwise. I suspect that almost every family knows someone who has suffered. We ought not to sweep the issue under the carpet. We must see whether we can help children and, I hope, their parents.

Mr. Bill Walker: I hope that the hon. Lady is not suggesting that anything that I said was condoning incest or suggesting that the subject should be swept under the carpet. I find it so horrendous and horrible that I want all aspects of it properly and fully debated.
I keep coming back not to the father, but to the mother and the child, because they are the important people and we must give them adequate consideration and protection. That is the purpose of the amendments.

Ms. Richardson: In a sense, the hon. Gentleman is saying that extending the age to 21 would give a young woman more protection. However, the Bill says only that with young people under the age of 16 an act should be regarded as incestuous and that if they are over the age of 16 there will not be an incestuous act. I cannot see how extending the age to 21 would help the young women.
Would not it be better for the children about whom the hon. Gentleman was talking not to know that they were born of an incestuous relationship? Perhaps I am not making myself clear. If so, it is too late for me to apologise now. This is a confusing issue in a confusing Bill. Even our wonderful Library, while perhaps not finding the Bill confusing, found it difficult to follow. I hope that in the not too distant future we shall have a wider discussion of the problem.

Mr. Wallace: My name appears on the amendments for a procedural reason. The Public Bill Office and those advising me on the Bill did not expect that we would have

an opportunity to debate it and, so that it could be deemed to be unopposed and, therefore, agreed to, I added my name to the amendments.
These are not wrecking amendments. The Bill could live with them, but I should strongly prefer them not to be accepted.
Let me try to put the amendments into context and perhaps clarify matters for the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson). The present law on incest in Scotland is based on the Act of the Scottish Parliament in 1567, which, in turn, is based on the 18th chapter of the book of Leviticus in determining the persons between whom sexual relations would be deemed to be incestuous and criminal.

Mr. Mikardo: I know nothing about Scottish law, but I know the book of Leviticus and the passage to which the hon. Gentleman refers contains no reference to a stepfather.

Mr. Wallace: With due respect to the hon. Gentleman, whose knowledge of Leviticus I do not dispute, over the years the Scottish courts have deemed that the step relationship is covered by one of the verses of Leviticus. I regret not having come armed with the Bible and, more particularly, for the purpose of the Act, the 1562 Geneva translation. My point is that the chapter includes relationships, both affinity and blood, and the substantial thrust of the Bill is to decriminalise relationships by affinity.
2 pm
The related offences which are referred to in the Bill's title give protection to certain categories of persons who are not related by blood—stepchildren under the age of 16 and children under the age of 16 for whom an adult is in some position of trust. Some parts of the criminal law already give protection, but the Bill extends the sanctions that can be imposed if, for example, there is a breach of that trust. Indeed, if a case is brought on indictment in the High Court, it allows a sentence up to life imprisonment. One should be under no illusion about the seriousness which Parliament, and, indeed, society, attach to such offences.
The age of 16 was arrived at by the Scottish Law Commission after much deliberation. I, too, gave considerable thought to whether it should be 18 or 21. Indeed, it was only after I had discussed the matter at considerable length with the Scottish Law Commission that I accepted that 16 was the appropriate age.
I was guided by the fact that we are dealing with consensual intercourse between two people. If it were not consensual, it would be rape, for which there are the full penalties and rigours of the criminal law. For a child with a step-parent it may be difficult to prove consent, but that applies below the age of 16 as well as above. In fact, one might say that above the age of 16 it is a lot easier to prove because the person concerned is more likely to be forthcoming or to go to the police if he or she— it is more likely to be she—is subjected to undue pressure.

Mr. Bill Walker: I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the age of 16-plus is still extremely difficult in the circumstances that can exist surrounding this horrendous situation. I have a 16-year-old daughter at home and I can imagine situations in which she would find it extremely difficult to speak out in any forms against her


father who in no way behaves in the manner that we are talking about. A person of 16 is still a child. We must recognise that the circumstances of the domestic home impinge on the ability of the child who is the victim to say anything because that child may end up out on the street.

Mr. Wallace: I never sought to minimise the difficulties. Under the age of 16 it is even more difficult for the child to speak out.
A woman in her thirties may marry but soon separate from a man in his twenties and the man could fall in love with that woman's 17-year-old daughter. That relationship would be caught by the Bill and it would be a criminal offence if this amendment were to be accepted. They are not related by blood. Parties may have parted and after many years the stepfather and his stepdaughter may meet. If the stepdaughter had lived in the house and been treated as a member of the family, even if when they subsequently met he was 39 and she was 35, that would still be criminal and subject to life imprisonment.

Mr. Bill Walker: We are more likely to be dealing with a child who lives at home passing the age of 16 and who is exposed to this problem than with the delightful, romantic but theoretical proposition that the hon. Gentleman has outlined. I believe that we should deal with what is likely to happen.

Mr. Wallace: I was merely pointing out what the consequences of the hon. Gentleman's amendment might be. We are giving protection to the child of a step relationship. However, if the parties have not married, a girl in a similar position, who might be subject to similar pressures, could well find that she does not have that protection. Therefore, there are arguments to be made on the ground of consistency.
As I have pointed out, only one denominational church, one of the free Presbyterian churches, has expressed any objection. It has been said that that was before the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Bill was passed. But that suggests that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has not given much thought to his proposals. That Act makes the situation less anomolous than it would have been at the time when the church did not raise any objections. Then there was no provision for a marriage between a step-parent and a stepchild. Now there is, subject to certain conditions. However, the hon. Gentleman has sent me a note saying that if I reject the amendments, he will talk out the Bill on Third Reading. I do not want that to happen, because if this Bill is lost after the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Bill has been enacted, it would be perfectly legal for parties to marry, but it would be criminal for them to have sexual relations with each other. Undoubtedly, that is what the hon. Gentleman would achieve. Interestingly enough, however he would not protect adopted children.
At present, it is believed that the law of incest does not apply to adopted children. This Bill covers that. Perhaps the hon. Member for Tayside, North would like to appear in church on Sunday to tell his congregation why he wanted to stop a Bill that would protect adopted children. At present, the law does not protect illigitimate children either. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to tell his congregation why he did not want to protect them.

Mr. Bill Walker: I shall always be happy to stand up in church, or anywhere else, and say that I have not supported legislation that I deem to be so flawed and faulty that I cannot accept it. That is really what we are talking about.

Mr. Wallace: I think that I have made my point. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider whether he wishes to press the amendment, or whether it might be better to withdraw it. Some highly anomalous cases might come up, and people may find themselves facing criminal sanctions although the vast majority of people would not think that any criminality attached to their behaviour.
Two married people may indulge in an adulterous relationship. They are not free to marry, but the law does not make their relationship criminal. I do not support or encourage the sort of relationships to which the hon. Gentleman referred; nor does the Bill. The Bill means that they would not be deemed criminal relationships. The hon. Gentleman used the example of a child of a relationship not having protection. I accept that, but that could happen now. Today the parties could also find themselves in prison. What would happen to the child then? We are not giving our moral approbation. After all, adultery is not morally approved by society, but for many years we have not thought fit to make it a criminal offence.
If the amendment is passed, at least we shall have the satisfaction of knowing that, under the law in Scotland, the Lord Advocate's consent is needed for every prosecution. I am sure that he will have the good sense, if anomalies arise, not to consent to prosecution.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): The House will have listened with interest to the debate between my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). I should like to make it clear — I do not think that those hon. Members dispute this—that we all have a clear interest in ensuring that the Bill is passed with, or without, the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North. Under the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Act 1986 there are a number of relationship in which marriage can now take place but where marriage partners would be commiting incest if they consummated the marriage.
The Government remain neutral on the Bill's details. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North told the House, the effect of the amendment would be to prohibit intercourse with a stepchild under 21 or for all time if the stepchild before attaining the age of 18 had lived in the same household as the accused and had been treated as a child of the family. This matches exactly the conditions laid down for marriage in the 1986 Act.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland put forward strong reasons why the amendments should not be accepted. He said that they were at odds with the existing law on the age of consent and created a serious criminal offence in circumstances where it seems inappropriate to invoke the criminal law—for example, where a man has intercourse by consent with an adult woman of, say, 20 with whom he has never lived in family but who happens to be the daughter of his wife or former wife. The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that prosecution would remain a matter for the Lord Advocate.
I hope that I have fairly summarised the arguments. The Government are neutral on the details of the Bill I hope that it will pass through all of its stages this afternoon.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 32, in page 12, line 41, after 'offence', insert
if that step-child is either under the age of 21 or has at any time before attaining the age of 18 lived in the same household and been treated as a child of his or her family.'.
No. 3, in page 3, line 2, leave out '16' and insert '21'. —[Mr. Wallace.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Wallace.]

Mr. Allan Stewart: I should like to take this opportunity to speak more generally about the Bill, which has been put forward by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). He discussed its background during the previous debate on the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). As the hon. Gentleman rightly emphasised, the Bill follows a report of the Scottish Law Commission. He is to be congratulated on putting forward this legislation. As the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) said, it is a complex Bill.
The Bill deals with a matter of importance which can arouse fairly strong feelings. The House will have listened with considerable sympathy to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North who referred to the reservations expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and himself in Committee. Hon. Members were concerned about the difference between the marriage and the incest legislation and about the pressure which could be brought to bear on a stepchild over 16.
I think that it is fair to report that my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling expressed a worry in Committee that the Bill would allow intercourse between step-relations who, in terms of the marriage legislation, would not be able to marry. He pointed out that if intercourse led to conception it would prevent the father of the child in that union marrying the mother.
Should the Bill fail to secure a Third Reading we shall be faced with a situation where, if and when the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Act 1986 is commenced, persons in a step-relationship marrying under that Act will, if they consummate the marriage, be committing incest.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on bringing forward the Bill and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Wallace: I thank the Minister for his kind words. It is only fair to say that the real hard work in regard to the Bill was put in by the Scottish Law Commission in terms of the consultative document it initially sent out, which was the product of a considerable amount of work. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) said in the previous debate, this is a serious subject that evokes emotions and has sociological aspects. In the Scottish Law Commission's work on this some of those aspects were looked at. The Scottish Law Commission certainly drew on the work that has been done by many sources in dealing with the serious problem of incest.
We are grateful to the Scottish Law Commission and I am grateful to the officials in the Scottish Home and Health Department. Although the Government were neutral in the matter the Scottish Home and Health Department was obviously concerned that if legislation was going through it should be in a good and proper form and it assisted me in that aim.
In some respects it is rather sad that, if the Bill proceeds to get the Royal Assent, the previous Act will cease to exist. I do not think that we will ever again pass legislation that says:
quhatsumever persoun or personis they be that abusis thair body with sic personis in degre as Goddis word hes expreslie forbidden … as is contenit in the xviii Cheptour of Leviticus salbe puniest …
Draftsmen these days seem to have a more simple and colourful way of putting things forward. It is certainly simpler than the previous Act. If the Bill becomes an Act I believe that it will improve the position of criminal law in Scotland and I commend the Third Reading to the House.

Mr. Bill Walker: I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on seeing the good sense of accepting the amendments. Like him, I cannot pretend that everything is as we would have wished but it is an improvement on the present position. I believe that, with the passage of time, the amendments will be seen to have been of considerable value.
This will not be the end of the debate on this delicate, important and often distressing and disturbing matter. I am confident that we shall return to it again at a later stage because some aspects still need to be tidied up. I was never opposed to what the hon. Gentleman or the Scottish Law Commission were attempting to achieve but I believe that they were exposing individuals unnecessarily to a situation that ought not to happen. That was why I tabled the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Obscene Publications (Protection of Children, Etc.) (Amendment) Bill

Order read for resuming of adjourned debate on Question [25 April].

Amendment No. 12 proposed: In page 3, line 17, leave out '18' and insert '16', instead thereof.—[Mr. Dubs.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I think that hon. Members will be aware that this is the third time I have attempted to say a few words in support of this amendment which was moved many moons ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs). On the first occasion on which I endeavoured to explain why I thought that my hon. Friend was right to move the amendment I was brutally cut short after 28 seconds. Therefore, I was not able to deploy any substantial arguments in favour of the amendment. However, a later opportunity arose. On that occasion I was cut off after only 17 seconds, which included an intervention from the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley).
I must ask the permission of the House to start from scratch. The argument is a simple one, and in dealing with it I shall address myself indirectly to amendment No. 14, which has also been selected. It is an argument about the minds of young men at the ages of 16 and 17 years. The concept of the Bill as it now is is that lads of 16 and 17 do not know anything about what used to be called euphemistically the facts of life, or sometimes called even more euphemistically the birds and the bees. The Bill contends that, against that background, we must not let 16 or 17-year-olds see anything which it would be all right for my hon. Friends, myself and Conservative Members to see. That is because it is assumed that we know about the birds and the bees and 16 and 17-year-olds do not.
That is a nonsensical proposition. When my four grandsons were teenagers about a decade ago, I used often to talk with them about the facts of life. That was because I learned a great deal from them. They were far more advanced in their mathematics than the mathematics which I learnt many years ago and so they were much more advanced than their old fogey of a grandfather in knowing about things that go on.
The idea that we old fogies can attend this place on a Friday and solemly profess to know—I am old and the Minister is preternaturally old—what is in the mind of a youngster of 16 or 17, and even worse, to profess to know what it is that will tend to corrupt and deprave a youngster of that age, is a piece of monstrous intellectual arrogance on our part.

Mr. Max Madden: I am sure that we are all listening to my hon. Friend with considerable interest and that we shall all agree with him. However, is he as surprised as I am that the Bill's sponsor has not seen fit to be with us today to see his Bill on its way? Is he surprised that the hon. Member for Daveyhulme (Mr. Churchill) has not seen fit to join us? Does that not display some arrogance and even lack of interest on his part?

Mr. Mikardo: It would not be for me to pass moral judgments on another hon. Member. The sponsor was not present when we last discussed the Bill and nor was he present on the occasion before that. I suspect strongly that

his enthusiasm for his Bill has waned rapidly. Those who have followed the progress of the Bill will recall that he has knocked it down as if it were a Meccano set and rebuilt the bits into a different structure on three occasions during the Bill's consideration.
The hon. Member for Daveyhulme (Mr. Churchill) started with fine intentions. He started with a realisation that the present law on obscenity is nonsensical. I utterly agree with him about that. I do not know any reasonable person who could disagree.
Having drawn his place in the ballot, the hon. Member for Davyhulme thought that, as the existing law was nonsense, he would try to bring in a measure that would improve it. I believe that he set out seriously to do that, and I think that he did his best, which is why I do not want to be condemnatory of him. However, he discovered, as many others have discovered before him, that when one gets into this branch of the law, one walks straight into a minefield. The difficulties of definition are so ineluctable that one is better off leaving the thing alone, for all its faults.
I voted for a Second Reading, although I thought that it was an awful Bill in its first draft. Hon. Members will recall that it had what came to be called the laundry list. It was a nonsensical Bill, which would have prevented the showing of King Lear as obscene. It would have prevented a travelogue of the city of Brussels if it included a picture of the statue of the Manneken Pis in Le Grand Place. It would have prevented the showing of many great classical works of the Italian, Flemish and other schools. Why did I vote for this nonsensical Bill? Because I hoped that in Committee we could find through our collective wisdom, a way of turning the Bill into a decent Bill.
The hon. Member for Davyhulme kept trying. When somebody told him that something would not do, he tried something else and when they said that that would not do either, he tried something else, and he got browned off in the process. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), that is why the hon. Member for Davyhulme is not here. He has come to the conclusion that he has suffered enough, and my guess is that he will not even be putting his name in the ballot for private Members' Bills next Session, least he should be tempted to venture again into this, or any other, minefield.
Look where the hon. Member has got in the end. After going round and round the houses, he has come back, in subsection (3) to the tendency to "deprave and corrupt". He has adopted the very criterion, the very form of words to which he objected so much, and his objections to which, in the first place, made him introduce the Bill.

Mr. Chris Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that in clause 2, to which his amendment relates there is in effect a new definition being brought into the law, that of a tendency to "deprave and corrupt" persons under the age of 18? The amendment being supported so ably by my hon. Friend would replace that age limit with one of 16. Would that not be of benefit to the Bill, as it is easier to prove such a tendency to "deprave and corrupt" persons under the age of 16, than it is to prove such a tendency for persons of the age of 16 or over?

Mr. Mikardo: I do not go along with my hon. Friend. I do not believe that I can estimate what would tend to deprave and corrupt him, and he could not estimate what


would tend to deprave and corrupt me. It is even more clear that neither of us can remember our youth so well as to make any estimate or any judgment that is worth a farthing of what would tend to corrupt or deprave a lad of 16, 17 or 18. We are too far removed from that. My heart bled for the hon. Member for Davyhulme as I watched his agonised process or retreat from one redoubt to the next redoubt. Despite all that agony, now we have reached, in an effort to improve—

It being half past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Debate to be resumed what day? No day named.

Private Members' Bills

EMPLOYMENT (AGE LIMITS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

TOBACCO PRODUCTS (TELEVISION BROADCASTS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

IMMIGRATION ACT 1971 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I did not hear an objection.

Mr. Richard Holt: This is an abuse of the procedures of the House.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Shut up.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are about 35 Bills on the Order Paper that have still to be considered. We seem to be gathered for what is to be the July massacre of all those private Members' Bills by virtue, I suspect, of a grey and anonymous Whip uttering in a very muffled way the word "Object".
You will recall that on other occasions when Bills that would have provided considerable benefits to worthy sections of the community have been killed in this way we have protested that those who wish to kill them should at least have the guts to identify themselves, so that their names are on the record as opposing those measures.
Many months ago a Bill that I introduced was accepted without opposition, but it was later killed off by somebody who uttered in a very quiet voice the word "Object". I raised this matter on that occasion, and I ask you again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to require the person who objects to a Bill — in this case merely to give somebody who is refused entry to this country the right of appeal — to identify himself. If the rate of refusals continues as at present, 20,000 people will be refused entry to the United Kingdom this year. The only right of appeal that they have is when they leave—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not go into the merits of the Bill. I understand his point of order and I shall deal with it.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is high time that those who shout "Object" behind cupped hands should be identified in Hansard. When somebody shouts "Object" in the House of Commons, the whole House should hear it, not just Mr. Speaker, or Mr. Deputy Speaker. An objection must be heard by every hon. Member. The fact is that the hon. Member who is sitting close to you, the millionaire hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), was the person who shouted "Object" to this Bill, and he has shouted "Object" on previous occasions. He objected to the removal of standing charges for pensioners, and he ought to be ashamed of himself. It is time that pensioners boycotted Sainsbury's stores.
It is time that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, did not fall prey to the nonsense of those who whisper "Object" instead of letting the whole House hear them so that the names go into Hansard. They should have the guts to make plain what they are doing—that they are ripping off pensioners and objecting to a Bill relating to immigration that has been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden).

Mr. Dave Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It ill-behoves the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) to keep muttering from a sedentary position about these Bills, some of which deal with employment, when Cleveland has the highest rate of unemployment in the country.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), on a number of occasions I have been the victim of a ruling from the Chair that some of my more eloquent contributions from a sedentary position should not be recorded in Hansard. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was involved in a little altercation a few weeks ago about what is or is not recorded in Hansard, should the person making the contribution not be on his feet.
About 30 Bills have come before the House towards the end of the Session—I am a supporter of the Bill that we are now discussing—and it is our last chance to pursue them. I ask you to rule that if it is good enough for the occupant of the Chair to say that a joke by my hon. Friend for Bolsover or myself cannot be recorded in Hansard because we have not stood up and identified ourselves, similarly any hon. Member objecting to Bills should not have his objection registered in Hansard unless he — in this case the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury)—stands and identifies himself as killing the Bills on behalf of the Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the points of order raised by the three hon. Members. As they said, this matter has been raised on previous occasions. I have taken the opportunity to study past procedures and precedents, and it might be helpful to the House if I describe the procedure. As I said, similar points have been raised on many occasions over a number of years, and Procedure Committees have considered the practice.
The practice of the House does not require an hon. Member to rise to signify an objection. If there is no objection to a Bill when the title is read, its opponents can easily preserve their anonymity and still secure the deferral of the Bill by giving their voices as "No" when I put the Question. Hon. Members have never been required to rise to give their voices when any Question is put to the vote.
I understand that the current work of the Procedure Committee includes consideration of the arrangements for private Members' Bills. Hon. Members may wish to put their points to the Committee. Until the House approves any change, I am bound to follow current practice.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It might be helpful of you were aware that there is a conspiracy by three hon. Members, who are skulking behind the Clerk's Table, who appear to have come to the Chamber with the preordained purpose of destroying every one of the private Members' Bills. If they did the decent thing and stood up

and said who they were and what they represented, the problem would be solved and we would know exactly what interests were being served in destroying these very important private Members' Bills.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot add to what I have already said. I have reminded hon. Members that if they are dissatisfied, as clearly some of them are, with the existing procedures and current practice, they can put their points to the Procedures Committee.

Mr. Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Without challenging the precedent that you have explained, and respecting your suggestion of correspondence with the appropriate Committee, may I ask you to confirm that it is open to Government Whips, should they so wish, to stand and identify themselves as Government Whips when they make an objection? Were they interested in openly declaring that it was the Government's decision, and not the decision of individual hon. Members, to block the private Members' Bills, they—for example, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) — could stand and identify themselves as Government Whips.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have made it clear that there is no obligation on any hon. Member to rise when he wishes to signify an objection.

Mr. Tony Banks: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to tax your patience on this matter, because you have sat through many similar protests that Back-Bench Members have raised on Fridays when Bills are slaughtered by the Government.
I was not sure whether you responded to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made about taking an objection, and whether it is only the Chair that has to hear the objection. One can only assume that the three Whips, who have moved very close to you, have done so so that they can make their objection known quietly and without drawing attention to their wider shame. If the Whips who object on behalf of the Government do so loudly enough, we might be able to identify them, even though they are sitting down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair has to hear the objection. 1 heard objections to the Bills that have already been dealt with.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to tax you further either, and you have been in the Chair often when this matter has been raised, but this is an important issue for the House. I understood you to say—please correct me if I am wrong—that the practice is based on precedent. Precedents can be changed. What original authority gave rise to this custom or usage in the House? Hon. Members have raised this matter at 2.30 pm on a Friday so often that it is quite clear that if there is any room for the Chair to make a decision which changes our practice, without the matter going to the Procedure Committee, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Mr. Speaker and others who can advise might well look into this issue.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In considering this matter, can it please be borne in mind that the practice to which Opposition Members so strongly object was followed consistently by the Labour party when it was last in power?

Several Hon. Members: We were not here then.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We had better not get into a debate about how this procedure has been used in the past. Perhaps I can deal with the additional point that has been raised. What I said is based on current practice, but it also stems directly from Standing Order No. 1, and it might be helpful if I deal with that.
The opportunity of objecting to items of business is not confined to private Member's Bills. Under Standing Order No. 1, any item of business taken after the moment of interruption — 10 pm on Monday to Thursday and 2.30 pm on Friday — which is not specifically exempted by Standing Orders or by a business motion can be blocked by any indication of objection. I might add that Government motions are not infrequently blocked by this procedure late at night.

Mr. Nellist: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for rising again, but, as your rulings are coming out they are triggering queries in my mind. As I understand it, if I were successful—I have not been so far—in making an application under Standing Order No. 10 to have an emergency debate on the detention of trade unionists in South Africa, you would ask the House whether I had leave for such a debate, and you would require 40 hon. Members to rise in their places to show that the specified number of hon. Members backed the application. Does it not seem equitable that, as hon. Members are required to demonstrate support by standing on their feet for an application under Standing Order No. 10, Government Whips should stand up to identify themselves when they kill off Bills? Should not the Procedure Committee consider that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is making a point that he can put to the Procedure Committee, but he will not tempt me into making comments on the procedures and Standing Orders of the House. It is my job to ensure that they are observed and correctly carried out, and that is what I am endeavouring to do.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It strikes me that this practice has obtained for a long time. When I was a member of the Government, it also happened. Many of us, whether members of the Government or Back Benchers, have undoubtedly not liked the practice. I suspect, although I shall not ask whether it is the case, that it causes considerable embarrassment to the occupant of the Chair that he must rule in this way. Concern about the practice is undoubtedly growing, and I ask that colleagues write to the Procedure Committee and that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, direct the Clerk of the House to report our exchanges this afternoon to the Procedure Committee, so that it may discuss the matter at some length and make recommendations to the whole House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not for the Chair to direct the Procedure Committee on its business. However, I feel sure that the hon. Gentlemen who have raised these points will put the matter to the Procedure Committee. As I said earlier, I understand that it is on its terms of reference at present, so the opportunity is there. I hope the House feels that we have had a good run on this and that we should proceed with our business.
Before the points of order, the Second Reading of the Immigration Act 1971 (Amendment) Bill was objected to and I was about to say: Objection taken, Second Reading what day?

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

ANIMAL WELFARE (ROYAL COMMISSION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

STANDING CHARGES (ABOLITION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Corbyn: With the permission of the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), who I understand is objecting to the Bill—he can disagree with me if that is not so—Monday next.

Second Reading deferred till Monday 7 July.

RIGHT TO CO-OPERATE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

INDECENT DISPLAYS (NEWSPAPERS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Corbyn: With the permission of the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) and The Sun newspaper, we would like to have the Bill debated on Monday next.

Second Reading deferred till Monday 7 July.

RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES (PROMOTION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday 7 July.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH (UNIVERSITIES AND INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

RIGHT TO INTEREST BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

UNFITNESS TO PLEAD BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING AND WORKERS PROTECTION) BILL

Order for Second Reading Read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

PUBLIC SAFETY (INFORMATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

CO-OWNERSHIP OF FLATS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

ACCOMPLICE EVIDENCE (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

TOBACCO PRODUCTS (HEALTH WARNINGS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

POLITICAL PARTIES (INCOME AND EXPENDITURE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

POLICE COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

CONCESSIONARY TELEVISION LICENCES FOR STATE RETIREMENT PENSIONERS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Skinner: If no one else will get up, I will.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

COMPANIES BILL

Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [18 April]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

MEDICAL ACT 1983 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

FOOTBALL BETTING LEVY BOARD BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till 10 August.

CROSSBOWS (RESTRICTIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

TOBACCO PRODUCTS (SPORTS SPONSORSHIP) BILL

Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [21 February]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

PENSIONERS' RIGHT TO HEAT, LIGHT AND COMMUNICATIONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Several hon. Members are competing to object to the Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. All that the hon. Gentleman can do is to name a day.

Mr. Corbyn: I wish the Bill to be debated next Tuesday, and I hope that the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) is unable to attend.

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

UNBORN CHILDREN (PROTECTION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

SHOPS (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

REMANDS IN CUSTODY (COMPENSATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

FAMINE RELIEF IN AFRICA BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

FIRE PRECAUTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

OWNERSHIP OF THE MEDIA BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member who has objected owns most of the media anyway.

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

WELSH LANGUAGE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

CUSTOMS CONSOLIDATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many hon. Members have nominated next Monday as an appropriate day for Second Reading debates on Bills. Will you now call upon the Leader of the House to make time available on Monday so that these important matters can be debated? At least two of the Bills have a significant bearing on 9 million pensioners because of the proposed abolition of standing charges. It is important that we discuss these matters so that arrangements can be made to abolish standing charges before the onset of winter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a good try by the hon. Member for Islington, North (M r. Corbyn), but he knows that it is well established that a day is often named even when the hon. Member concerned knows that the chances of having a debate on that day is extremely remote.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (ESTIMATES)

Ordered,
That, on the next half day allotted under Standing Order No. 19 (Consolidation of estimates), notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) of the Standing Order, Mr. Speaker shall at the conclusion of the debate or at Seven o'clock, whichever is the earlier, put any Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings on the Estimate appointed for consideration on that day.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Business of the House

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement about the business next week. The business will be amended as follows:
WEDNESDAY 9 JULY—Estimates Day (3rd Allotted Day). There will be a debate on Estimates relating to supplementary benefit payments for private and voluntary residential care for the elderly, followed by a debate on Estimates relating to labour market services so far as they relate to the promotion of tourism. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motions on the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order and the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order.
Completion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill will be postponed until a later date to be discussed through the usual channels.

[Estimates Jar debate on Wednesday 9 July 1986

1. Class XV, Vote 2 (Department of Health and Social Security: Supplementary Benefits) so far as it relates to expenditure on supplementary benefit payments for private and voluntary residential care for the elderly; and

2. Class VII, Vote 1 (Department of Employment: labour market services) so far as it relates to the promotion of tourism.]

Mr. Peter Shore: The House will have noted what the right hon. Gentleman said about the change of business on Wednesday 9 July and will recall that it was only yesterday—less than 24 hours ago — that we heard him confidently announcing that the business for Wednesday 9 July would be the completion of the remaining stages of the Finance Bill. That is not an unimportant matter, because it gives legislative effect to the Budget. One would have thought that it was a central part of the Government's programme.
The right hon. Gentleman has not told us why, in the past 23 hours, there has been a change in the most important item—from the Government's point of view in the coming week. Is it to do with the fact that no fewer than 68 amendments were put down yesterday? Will a further batch of amendments appear on Monday? If so, is this not a classic of muddle and incompetence in the Treasury and the Government in the dispatch of vital business?
The choice of subjects for the debates on Wednesday are certainly matters which we are willing to discuss, because we believe that benefit payments for private and voluntary residential care for the elderly and the promotion of tourism are matters of great importance. However, I should like to hear the response of the Leader of the House to what I said about the reasons for the extraordinary change of business at such short notice and affecting such an important subject.

Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that yesterday the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) raised with me the difficulties that he thought might arise on this matter and I told him that I would look into it. When I announced the business for next week it was hoped that the Government would be able to table today all their amendments to the Finance Bill. That has not been possible and, in the circumstances and following


discussions through the usual channels, we thought that it would be inappropriate to complete consideration of the Bill next week. Now that we have secured a little additional time, I very much hope that we can proceed in a manner which will be acceptable to both sides of the House.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: The right hon. Gentleman has made his business statement because there has been a change of circumstances. Will he consider making another business statement following the fact that the Glasgow Herald reports today that the Allander Institute says that 4,000 miners' jobs in Scotland are to go west and that another 8,000 jobs may go in consequence? Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that those circumstances require him to make another business statement? It is a matter of urgency and we should have a debate on the matter on Wednesday, because the Scottish people want to know what is happening as a result of the Government's policies.

Mr. Biffen: I shamelessly belong to the old-fashioned school that believes that, ideally, one business statement a week is quite enough. Therefore, I do not hold out—I trust — any early prospect of additional business statements over the next few days. Of course, the point raised by the hon. Gentleman is of undoubted importance to Scotland and to the nation generally, but there will be opportunities between now and the summer recess when these matters can be considered in private Members' time.

Mr. Simon Hughes: We welcome the deferral of further debate on the Finance Bill for just the reason that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has given. The enormous number of amendments would have made it impossible for any justice to have been done to the debate on Wednesday.
If there are to be protests, as we have seen twice in the last fortnight, both resulting in statements to the House saying that matters are to be postponed to a further date, should that not be an encouragement to the Opposition to protest more rigorously and often and thereby to lose further Government business until an indefinite later date —ideally the next side of the general election?

Mr. Biffen: I know that last night's announcement was distressing to the hon. Gentleman It was etched on every Liberal face as they saw the fox writhing in agony, having been well and truly shot. The hon. Gentleman ought not to press me to have many more changes in business, otherwise we shall be here until mid-August or beyond as I acquiesce in every request that is made.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that in this parliamentary Session there have been more revised business statements than at any time that I can recall since I came here in 1970? As we have had another today, perhaps he will consider what occurred in the few minutes before Mr. Speaker took the chair. Why not on Wednesday have the Second Reading debate on the Standing Charges (Abolition) Bill which will greatly assist pensioners? We could debate the Immigration Act 1971 (Amendment) Bill, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) referred. We could debate the Concessionary Television Licences for State Retirement Pensioners Bill. Here is a wonderful opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to do something

decent for the pensioners. There might even be votes in it. He should make sure when we have those debates that he tells the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) to keep out of the way so that we shall have a fair chance of getting someything done.

Mr. Biffen: I always welcome the interventions of the hon. Member for Bolsover because he is now moving into maturity when he tells us how many years he has been in this place and reflects upon how, in all that time, he has never found this, that or the other. But at the same time as he ages, he retains a certain innocence of affairs. The governing of private business that we were discussing earlier this afternoon is conditioned by Standing Orders, and I simply cannot set them aside for next week.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Does the Leader of the House agree that, in the same way as he brought a motion before the House a few days ago to increase by one day the allocation of time for private Members' motions following the disgraceful attempt by the Government to carve up and freeze out my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), it is within his authority, particularly as we have lost the Shops Bill and the legislation to privatise the water authorities, which has opened up a gap in parliamentary time, to produce more time for the discussion of private Members' Bills, particularly those about which we have argued today which deal with pensioners? As he has announced a change in Wednesday's business dealing with financial services, the big bang and salaries of £100,000 a year in the City of London and substituted supplementary benefit payments for residential care for the elderly, would it not be appropriate on Wednesday to compare those salaries with the fact that in Coventry, the west midlands and nationally some residential homes charge £40 or £50 a week more than the DHSS will allow pensioners to claim in order to pay for those private residential homes? I should like to draw that comparison on Wednesday.

Mr. Biffen: I shall try to help the hon. Gentleman as best I can. He has just asserted that I have a great deal more time at my disposal because of the announcement to delay the privatisation of the water authorities. That cannot conceivably affect next week's business, or, indeed, the balance of time left for this Session. Therefore, in view of the constraints under which I operate, and which the House will seek if it wishes to rise at some tolerably early time, he will have to make the speeches that he seeks within the disciplines set out for the Estimates day debate, and I am sure that he can do it.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: As you know, Mr. Speaker, before you came in a number of objections were raised about the treatment of private Members' Bills. The Leader of the House has not really answered the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). There are a number of private Members' Bills largely, but not exclusively, concerning the problems of pensioners in our society, which reflect a real concern that pensioners' living standards should be raised.
Will the Leader of the House rearrange the business for next Wednesday—as he appears to have a day on his hands—in order to ensure that those Bills are properly debated? There is a crying need to increase the living standards of pensioners from the present poverty levels. What proposals is he prepared to put to the Procedure


Committee or to the House so that private Members' Bills, which often reflect growing public anxiety and which require a lot of effort if they are to be enacted, can be properly debated and voted upon, and so that the nonsense of anonymous objectors who try to practise ventriloquy so that they are not identified can be brought to an end? The public would then know who and what interests were trying to destroy important reforms that have been introduced by individual hon. Members.

Mr. Biffen: The provision of time for private Member's legislation is governed by the Standing Orders of the House, and I have no opportunity or realistic ability to set them aside in the week ahead. Any hon. Member who heard this afternoon's transactions, or who has heard similar transactions on previous occasions, knows perfectly well that that issue is a matter of considerable concern to the House. However, it is not something new. Previous Procedure Committees have judged that there are real difficulties in essaying any alternative. However, the Procedure Committee is considering the matter, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give his evidence to it directly.

Mr. Richard Holt: Should my right hon. Friend drop his guard and allow some chink in his defences over the private Members' business for next week, will he, instead of listening to Opposition Members, give higher priority to the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) on freedom of speech on our campuses and in our universities?

Mr. Biffen: I must be even handed. I can hold out no more hope to my hon. Friend than I held out to Opposition Members.

Mr. Max Madden: I have considerable sympathy with the Leader of the House because he is being compelled to make numerous statements changing

the business. If I was him, I might suspect that there was a plot by some of my colleagues in the Treasury, Foreign Office or Department of the Environment to lessen my chances over the leadership of the party. However, let us put that on one side.
Many people look forward in eager anticipation to 23 July. However, I understand that that is also the day when the Social Security bill is likely to leave the other place. If so, the House seems to have little time in which to consider the three defeats that the Government have suffered so far in the other place. I do not know whether the Leader of the House intends to introduce a guillotine motion in order to steam-roller the House into reversing the decisions of the other place. I regret that lie was not in the House this morning when I presented a petition on behalf of 1,700 of my constituents, who protested that their incomes would be cut if the Bill was enacted.
We should certainly have a statement next Thursday about the timing of our consideration of the Social Security Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has suffered considerable criticism as a result of his handling of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. We are to consider that again at a late hour on Thursday. Could we not consider that Bill at a more convenient time, given the grotesque limitations that the right hon. Gentleman has placed on debating the important matters contained in it?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot in any sense help with a comment on the timing of the Social Security Bill in the other place. However, it is clearly a matter of great concern to the House, and it was raised during business questions yesterday. I have nothing more to add to what I then said. In a sense, the same applies to the debate on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. The Leader of the Opposition made a similar request. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to give him a different answer from the one that I gave to the Leader of the Opposition.

St Andrews University

Motion made, and Question proposed, that this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: When the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science—the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) — replied to a similar debate to this one initiated on by 18 June by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), he said that there was a
possibility of extra cash for the universities for the 1987–88 and subsequent financial years"—[Official Report, 18 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 1164.]
subject to certain qualifications about better management, especially financial management, the quality of teaching, and so on. The hon. Gentleman went on to use selective statistics to show how grateful Scotland should be for the wonderful advances made in Scottish education in the past seven or eight years. He cited the number of full-time students in higher education, but the debate was not about that. It was about universities. In fact, the number of university undergraduate entrants in Scotland remained virtually static between 1978 and 1985 at between 11,500 and 12,000.
I do not want to play the numbers game, because we have become used to the Government playing that game in health, housing and unemployment and few people believe a word they say. I prefer to use the more reliable test of what those at the sharp end of this operation think and say. On 14 June 1986 the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom sent a letter to, I presume, all hon. Members. It concluded:
The universities now face a major crisis. Because funding is too low, protecting excellence involves damaging much that is good.
The Committee offered a remedy — for 1986–87, £15 million should be provided from the contingency fund and for, 1987–88 to 1989–90, there should be
Enough extra cash to provide genuine level funding and the modernisation of equipment. At least £100 million is needed just to stabilise the system at the depressed 1986–87 level.
Whether that cash becomes available depends on the result of the struggle now going on in the Cabinet on future levels of public expenditure. The smiling face of the new Secretary of State for Education and Science and his skill as a public relations man will be no substitute for that hard cash.
I come to the St. Andrews problem. As I listened on 25 June to the new Secretary of State, I began to wonder, as did many other hon. Members, what the large lobby of university teachers on 12 June was all about. University staff are not, the most militant of people. They are civilised, reasonable men and women. But on 12 June they came marching down to this place from all over the United Kingdom to protest about the crisis in our universities. They came to complain not only about their salary, which is a scandal in itself, but about the overall funding of universities, the cuts they have had to endure over the past few years and the consequential effects of such shortsighted policies.
At that lobby I met representatives from St. Andrews university. Although it is not in my constituency, it affects the whole of Fife, indeed, the whole of Scotland. It draws

its students from all over Scotland, the United Kingdom and the world. Those representatives put a case to me which I promised to bring before the House.
Before I do that, I should like to say a word or two about the plight facing all Scottish universities lest it be presumed that St. Andrews has a particular grievance. It is a general grievance. All eight universities in Scotland are facing major cuts in the next financial year. Five universities, Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, St. Andrews and Stirling face cash cuts even on last year's figures. Although three of the universities have received cash increases, those increases are significantly less than the rate of inflation. Therefore, they are, in effect, real cuts.
The 1986–87 grants in Scotland are, on average, over 5 per cent. less than the minimum needed to maintain the position as it was in the previous year. If one looks at the whole period 1979–80 to 1985–86 the total of University Grants Committee grants to the Scottish universities has fallen in real terms from £191·9 million to £176·08 million, a cut of nearly £16 million. To put that another way, in order to restore the level of grant paid to the Scottish universities in 1979 the 1986–87 recurrent grant settlement would have have needed to be about £220 million, instead of which it is only £182 million. Despite the Minister's denial in an answer to me a few weeks ago and in the debate on 18 June, there is evidence of some regional discrimination in these matters. I shall try to spell out what that is.
I supplied the Minister with some information about St. Andrews which I hope has helped him to prepare a reply to the debate. As a result of the UGC's letters of 20 May and 27 May specifying funding allocation for 1986–87, St. Andrews will suffer a 0·4 per cent. cash cut, which is approximately a 5·4 per cent. cut in real university finance terms. That requires about £400,000 to be added to an already projected deficit for 1986–87.
The grant allocations were presumed to be based on an assessment of the quality of research being done in universities. Each university was examined department by department for the quality of its research. At St. Andrews 14 departments and sub-departments were graded as above average and five as below. However, it suffered a cut in its financial provisions. The reason for that treatment is apparently that the above average performance of St. Andrews was in the arts faculty, which attracts little external income for research. While the UGC and the Government tell the universities to concentrate on their strenghts they penalise universities such as St. Andrews because their recognised strengths are in the arts and there is an inability to attract external finance with such a discipline.
As the universities pointed out, research selectivity is not the main problem. The real problem is what is called the common unit of resource. The UGC has apparently made some calculations on the cost per student for each subject in each university. No university, and certainly not St. Andrews, seems to know how the calculations were made and whether they took account of the different teaching patterns in Scottish universities. It is significant that six of the eight universities in Scotland were told that for 1986–87 the implementation of the common unit of resource had operated to their financial disadvantage. It is important that the universities should know the full details of the criteria on which they are being judged. The UGC has apparently made no judgment of the quality of the teaching in our universities in arriving at its common


unit of resource. I hope that the Minister will agree that the quality of teaching is of no less importance than the quality of the research that is undertaken at our universities.
The overall impact of recent developments at St. Andrews since 1979–80 can be summed up shortly. Since that year there has been a 27 per cent. cut in real income. That has far-reaching effects both long-term and short-term, not least on the threat to jobs, careers and morale. There is also the diminution of opportunities for university education for the increasing number of youngsters with academic qualifications that are sufficient to qualify and entitle them to enjoy them.
In an area of higher than average unemployment, it is especially tragic that these savage cuts are endangering the community and tourist services that the university can offer. I shall give one of two examples. The Crawford arts centre promotes exhibitions, professional drama and concerts, children's activities and community education. It is funded jointly by the university, the Scottish Arts Council and local authorities. Its present annual turnover is £100,000. The university contributes £45,000, the Arts Council £25,000 and the local authorities £4,500. The exhibitions at the arts centre attract over 20,000 visitors annually, covering painting, architecture, photography and other crafts. The university's funding of salaries has been cut. One full-time post has already gone, and it is now planned to cease payment of the director's salary after 31 March next year. Unless external funding of the centre can be found, the centre will be closed.
The Government might take the view, "What does it matter that such a centre should be closed? It has no bearing on the country's economic prosperity and it can be disbanded."
The same argument might be advanced in response to my second example. The department of music was started in 1946 and it now has four full-time teaching staff, all of whom conduct choirs and orchestras and perform on instruments as well as teaching and engaging in research. The concerts of the university's musical society and the chapel choir are open to the public. The department promotes organ recitals on one of the finest organs in Scotland, I gather, and gives a series of concerts in the summer vacation. Apart from providing a full range of music courses, the staff gives extra-mural courses for the adult education department. Again, the Government might brush that aside as having no consequence in the economic battle in which we are now engaged.
The same argument might be applied to my third example, which is the archaeological museum. The museum has a rich collection of Roman and middle east antiquities as well as early Scottish items. It obtains its funds from the university and the local authorities. It is in danger of closing for the same reasons that I adduced earlier.
Another example is the university's botanical garden, which has been built up over the past 20 years into one of the country's great botanical gardens. It is of international renown. There, the effect of the cuts in the past six years has meant that a staff of over 17 is down to half that figure, and is likely to fall still further unless the gardens get more cash.
Overall, the picture is very depressing, to put it no higher. The recent UGC proposals must result in the decline in the number of home students and an increase in overseas students who pay fees, although the university is

forced to extract those fees. At a time when the country and employers are calling out for graduates and well-qualified personnel, St. Andrews and other universities are turning away would-be students.
The Scottish universities and the whole educational system have a vital contribution to make to counteract the decline of Scotland's manufacturing industry by the provision of a highly qualified work force and by the stimulation of technological innovation in new industries. The cuts in the finances for teaching and research can only accelerate Scotland's economic decline. We can only hope that the Government will heed the warnings coming from all quarters. They cannot pretend that the evidence is not there. It comes not, from political parties and those with axes to grind, but from people from all walks of life who are urging the Government to invest in our future, which means investing in education and, in this case, our universities.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. George Walden): The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) set out his worries about university funding in general and his particular constituency concerns in his own inimitable way. As always, I am grateful. I receive a heavy postbag on higher education matters. Scottish university concerns take at least their fair share of that. We have now had three debates on higher education—including two on Scottish universities—in the last fortnight.
Let me start by restating the current position on access and on university funding. The Government have a very good record on access to higher education. The number of full-time home students is now 77,000 higher than it was in 1979. The proportion of 18 and 19-year-olds entering higher education has increased by more than an eighth and the number of mature entrants is also up by about 15 per cent. These increases contrast starkly with the falls in numbers and participation rates between 1975 and 1979 when the hon. Gentleman's party was in office. This encouraging national picture is fully reflected in Scotland, as those who were present will know from the figures that I quoted when replying two weeks ago to the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross).
My sensibilities were deeply shocked by the sharp elitist distinction that the hon. Gentleman drew between universities and other aspects of education, such as polytechnics. I advise him to try that line on some of our better polytechnics. The Government's declared aim is to secure still further increases in higher education participation rates. We remain determined to press forward in that direction.
On university funding, matters rest at present with the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) on 20 May, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. As announced, the Government are ready to increase financial provision for the universities, provided that they demonstrated real progress in implementing and building on the changes that are needed.
That is the background against which we have to examine the concerns that the hon. Member raised. I readily acknowledge that, like all universities, St. Andrews faces a difficult task in containing its expenditure within


the funds available whilst sustaining quality and reshaping its provision in the light of developing national needs. I believe that, like others, it will be up to the task.
I say that with some little confidence because I had the pleasure of visiting Scotland's oldest university last March. It was a fairly whistle-stop tour, I am afraid—partly because of the diversity of the courses on offer—but I was impressed by what I saw. I also had some usefully frank and informative discussions with staff and students.
I want to look for a few moments now at the areas in which we have identified a need for improvement and at possible implications for St. Andrews. First, management. To a significant extent this must start at the top. I know that the principal of St. Andrews, Dr. Steven Watson, unfortunately died recently. I would like to pay tribute to him. He led the university successfully through a great deal of change over a period of 20 years. He was also an accomplished historian, and among other fields, Mr. Speaker, his researches focused on your distinguished office and on the contribution of some of your illustrious predecessors. It is no easy job being a vice-chancellor in today's world. Dr. Watson's work was well regarded and we wish his successor well.
Finally, on management, one issue which I cannot refrain from mentioning is tenure for academic staff. There can be no doubt that tenure in the form in which it is currently enjoyed by many academics is a major barrier to management flexibility and efficiency in the university system. The Government intend to press ahead, as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows, with legislation to limit the nature of tenure which can be granted in future. Therefore, I was very interested to hear of the strong attack by Mr. Stanley Adams, the new rector of St. Andrews, on the vested interest of tenure.
That brings me to the standards of teaching in universities, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Scottish universities—because of their place within the education system in Scotland and because of their four-year degrees — have long had a reputation for being relatively more concerned about teaching than their counterparts south of the border. I am advised that that distinction is less true than it was, both because of increased recognition throughout the system of the importance of sustaining teaching quality — a levelling up, as it were, to the hon. Gentleman's standards—and because Scottish universities have been giving increasing attention to the need for high quality research.
I understand that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals will shortly be publishing the final report of its working group, chaired by Professor Reynolds, which has been preparing advice and guidance on the means by which universities should monitor and maintain standards. All universities—English, Scottish and Welsh —will need to give priority to following up this work.
As hon. Members know, the UGC's recent grant allocations were not based, even in part, on an assessment of teaching quality in universities. The hon. Gentleman is right in that respect. I fully recognise that such assessments are very difficult, but I am hopeful that the UGC might be able to make some moves in that direction over the next few years. Judging from what the hon. Gentleman said, that should be a cause of some satisfaction both to him and to St. Andrews.
Let me turn now to selectivity in the funding of research. I regard this as of the utmost importance. This was reflected in the recent grant allocations and is generally accepted as necessary in order to provide more support for high quality research. It is also generally agreed that, on the whole, the UGC has done a good job. Not a single academic to whom I have talked about the question of selectivity has challenged the principle, although most of them challenge the result in this or that area. Many people will have the odd quibble. I have just said that nearly every academic to whom I have talked has the odd quibble, and it would be very surprising if that were not so. But without doubt there is no other body that could have tackled the job anywhere near as effectively as it has been tackled by the UGC, in very close consultation with some very distinguished people.
What the hon. Gentleman said about the number of sub-departments at St. Andrews with high research ratings was slightly misleading. I hope that he will not object to my putting it in that way. In fact, the University of St. Andrews emerged from the exercise with a broadly average rating. Six of its 13 main subject areas were assessed as average, three as above average and four as below average. In terms of individual subjects, research in psychology, art, history, classics and Russian was judged to be outstanding by international standards.
The key question now is the extent to which universities, including St. Andrews, pursue selectivity through their own internal arrangements—giving extra support to high quality work and taking a hard look at that which is below average. The UGC will be keeping all this under review over the next few years—refining its own procedures by experience and watching closely what individual universities do. It will be interesting to see how much changes.
In some, though by no means all, cases, lower quality work is a consequence of departments being small. I emphasise that I am not making a particular reference to St. Andrews. Where there are only one or two members of academic staff in a particular discipline it is that much harder to sustain high quality teaching and research cost-effectively. One solution which is appropriate in some cases is departmental rationalisation. St. Andrews, is, I know, already treading this road in co-operation with Dundee university. I hope that this can be actively pursued and that yet more universities will recognise the potential benefits from such changes.
Those are the directions in which Government policy is pointing. In none of them is a finger particularly pointed at St. Andrews or the Scottish universities generally. It is not our aim to disadvantage universities in Scotland; nor, despite the hon. Member's implications, has the UGC adopted grant allocation arrangements that are prejudicial to Scotland. The committee does not discriminate in any way between universities on grounds of their location. Standard considerations were applied to all universities. The UGC has circulated all universities with details of those, and will be spelling out the implications further in meetings with universities during the next few months.
None of that, however, means that the different pattern of provision in Scotland has gone unrecognised. The UGC's grants fully reflect the fact that most honours courses in Scotland last for four years. The hon. Member complained about funding, but, as a result of that,


universities north of the border receive roughly 30 per cent. more funding per honours graduate than do their English and Welsh counterparts.
So far I have spoken only about matters of direct concern to universities, and St. Andrews in particular. That is the extent of the specific responsibilities that my right hon. Friend and I hold.
The hon. Member also spoke, quite rightly, about the impact of the university on its local community. He drew particular attention to the university's importance as an employer locally and to its considerable influence on total spending power in the area. I acknowledge that, but it is true of quite a number of our universities which are sited in or near relatively small towns. Another aspect of a university's impact on its local community is also important. A key part of the Government's policy for higher education is to encourage greater links between academics and industry in their widest sense. These can provide significant support for universities and help industry gain more quickly from the fruits of research by facilitating technological transfer and making highly qualified consultancy services available. St. Andrews' involvement in the Glenrothes enterprise trust and its technology centre are good examples of that.
As the hon. Gentleman referred at some length to the general position of universities, I want to stress that what is now happening in higher education in general and in unversities in particular will strengthen those vital institutions for the future. Of that I have no doubt. In a speech the other evening, which the hon. Gentleman was lucky enough not to have read, I said that in private I have been assured by many university people that they well understood that many of the changes now taking place would strengthen the system for the future.
I understand that many of the reforms being introduced are painful for dons and difficult for those who manage universities, but they are absolutely vital in the longer term. Any Government who allow the not wholly efficient management of the university system to continue would be less responsible than they should be.
The Government aim to increase participation in higher education above the record levels already achieved. We are reviewing university funding levels in the light of improvements in that sector. St. Andrews and its locality should benefit from that as much as the remainder of the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Four o'clock.